Report MR 74-4 MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM · · 2013-09-10A07W37V SÄEss~~» —*• Report MR 74-4 MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM Career Potential Among ROTC

A07W37V SÄEss~~» —*•

Report MR 74-4

MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT

RESEARCH PROGRAM

Career Potential Among ROTC Enrollees:

A Comparison of 1972 and 1973 Suruey Results

Manpower Development Division Air Force Human Resources Laboratory

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Sponsored by

Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense

Manpower and Reserve Affairs

Directorate for Manpower Systems Evaluation

NOTICE

When US Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any purpose other than a definitely related Government procurement operation, the Government thereby incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever, and the fact that the Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder or any other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.

This report has been reviewed and cleared for open publication and/or public release by the appropriate Office of Information (01) in accordance with AFR 190-17 and DoD 5230.9. There is no objection to unlimited distribution of this report to the public at large, or by DDC to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

This report was submitted by the Manpower Development Branch, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE flWien Data Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

i. REPORT NUMBEROASD/M&RA MR-74-4 AFHRL-TR-74-39

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (end Subtitle;

CAREER POTENTIAL AMONG ROTC ENROLLEES: A Comparison of 1972 and 1973 Survey Results

5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Interim 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHORfaJ

Allan H. Fisher, Jr. Richard J. Orend Leslie S. Rigg

8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfa;

F41609-73-C-0030 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Human Resources Research Organization 300 North Washington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS

PE 62703F Project 4499-07-50

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Directorate for Manpower Systems Evaluation, Wash, DC 20301

12. REPORT DATE

November 1973 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

-124. U. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft ADDRESSf' different from Controlling Office)

Manpower Development Branch Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFSC) Alexandria, Virginia 22314

IS. SECURITY CLASS, (of thle report)

Unclassified 15a. DECLASSIFI CATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thle Report)

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ebetrect entered In Block 10, If different from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Survey conducted by Gilbert Youth Research, Inc., New York, N.Y.

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on rereree elde It neceeemry end Identify by block number)

Armed Services Reserves Attitudes Career Motivation

Training Programs Officers Prediction Recruitment ROTC Program 0501, 0509, 0510, 1407, 1503

20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reveree tide II neceeemry end Identify by block number)

Research into the career intentions of Army, Navy and Air Force ROTC cadets showed that a majority were willing to stay and continue into the advanced program, even without financial aid. The proportion for Army enrollees was much lower than for Navy or Air Force enrollees. Almost half of all advanced cadets were undecided about staying on active duty for more than one tour of duty, with Army enrollees the least likely and Air Force enrollees the most likely to remain.

DD ,^NRM73 1473 EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

TTnrlassif-toH SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(TWl«n Data Entered)

Item 20 (Continued)

"Military career opportunities" and the chance for "travel, adventure, and new experiences" were the most commonly cited reasons for entering ROTC. Navy cadets also indorsed the "opportunity for further academic education."

A majority of Army and Air Force scholarship holders, and less than half the Navy scholarship enrollees, indicated they would have entered ROTC without a scholarship. Over 60 percent in all services indicated they would have entered ROTC without a subsistance allowance.

ITnf TaQgifiaH SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(T»7)»n Data Entered)

SUMMARY

CAREER POTENTIAL

Short-range Potential

Short-range options studied included: (1) Willingness to stay in

the ROTC program if given the opportunity to leave; (2) Desire to continue

from the Basic program into the Advanced program; and (3) Willingness to

remain in the ROTC program without financial assistance and course credit.

In all three programs (Army, Navy, and Air Force), more than half of

the enrollees indicated they would remain in the program even if given

the opportunity to leave. But in 1973, Army enrollees were significantly

less likely to stay (67%) than were Navy enrollees (84%), and Air Force

enrollees (85%). These differences are largely attributable to the large

number of Army Non-scholarship enrollees who indicated that they would

leave the program if they had the opportunity. In contrast, results for

Army cadets with Scholarships were more favorable and were comparable to

the results for cadets in the other Services.

Basic cadets were asked if they would go on to the Advanced program.

In 1973, the response was highly favorable among Navy and Air Force cadets

(85% and 84% respectively). The Army cadets were much less favorable (57%).

The difference between the Army and the other branches was again attributable

to the Army Non-scholarship cadets. In the 1973 survey, only 52% of Army

Basic Non-scholarship enrollees indicated that they plan to continue into

the Advanced program. Differences in intention were found between Scholar-

ship and Non-scholarship enrollees for the Navy and Air Force, but they

were not as pronounced as the differences noted for Basic Army enrollees.

The only differences in response over time occurred among Army Non-

scholarship cadets. More of these cadets reported that they expect to

leave the program in 1973 than did so in 1972.

Cadets were asked directly if they would remain in the ROTC program

without a scholarship (if they held one), or without a subsistence

allowance (if they were eligible to receive one). In both cases, there

was a general decrease from 1972 to 1973 in willingness to stay in ROTC

without assistance. There was a corresponding increase in willingness

to leave the program, if financial assistance was not available. However,

the proportion of Scholarship holders willing to stay in ROTC did not drop

below 64% except in the case of Navy Scholarship holders. In this instance,

only 50% in 1972 and 41% in 1973 indicated they would remain in the Navy

ROTC program without their scholarships. Over 60% of cadets eligible

for subsistence allowances said they would stay in ROTC, even if they did

not receive this allowance. Thus, retention levels remained generally

high, but there may be an increasingly important role played by financial

assistance in maintaining retention.

Over 55% of the ROTC enrollees indicated they would remain in ROTC

without receiving college credit for their ROTC coursework. Army cadets

were least likely to remain in ROTC without college credit, while Air

Force cadets were most likely to remain in ROTC without college credit.

The Army, then, appears to have the most difficulty retaining enrollees

and is generally the Service most dependent upon outside incentives (the

role of the scholarship among Navy cadets is one key exception). Changes

from 1972 to 1973 seem to be in the direction of greater reliance on

outside incentives for retention in each ROTC program.

Long-Range Potential

In 1973, 25% of Army cadets, 31% of Navy cadets, and 42% of Air Force

cadets indicated that they intended to stay in the military service beyond

their initial tour of duty. Almost half were undecided (43% to 51%).

Among Army cadets, Scholarship holders were more likely to be interested

in a military career than Non-scholarship cadets. Also, the proportion

of Non-scholarship cadets planning to leave the Service after their first

tour increased significantly from 1972 to 1973. Differences among Navy

and Air Force cadets were related to academic status (Basic/Advanced)

rather than financial assistance. In both the Navy and Air Force, Basic

cadets were more likety to want to pursue a military career than Advanced

cadets.

Draft Motivation and ROTC enrollment

In each Service, a higher percentage of Basic ROTC enrollees were

"true-volunteers" than Advanced enrollees. This result might be expected

with the lessening of the "draft environment" between the times when

Basic and Advanced cadets joined ROTC. Scholarship holders were more likely

to be "true volunteers" than Non-scholarship cadets. In general, the Army

rate of "true volunteerism" was lower than the Navy or Air Force rates.

Also, while the Navy and Air Force programs increased their rates of "true

volunteerism" from 1972 to 1973, the Army program did not. All services

also show somewhat higher rates of "true volunteerism" among cadets planning

a military career than among those planning to leave the Service after

their first tour of duty. People who were draft-motivated when they

enrolled in ROTC do not want military careers.

KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF MILITARY OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAMS

Awareness of Officer Compensation

About half of all ROTC enrollees are able to correctly estimate

beginning officer base pay, the date of the most recent pay increase,

or the approximate total officer entry earnings. There are no outstanding

differences in knowledge of officer compensation between 1972 and 1973,

or between the branches of ROTC. Cadets were also asked if they thought

the pay of beginning military officers and other college graduates in

their first civilian job was equivalent. About 40% thought the pay was

equivalent and an additional 20% (Navy) to 42% (Air Force) thought that

the pay of beginning military officers exceeded the earnings of college

graduates in civilian jobs. Thus, it appears that military pay and allow-

ances currently have a favorable image among ROTC enrollees.

Awareness of Various Training Programs

ROTC cadets were also asked about their awareness of ROTC and other

off-campus officer training programs (PLC, ROC, and AVROC).

In general, the PLC program received the highest rate of claimed

awareness among the off-campus programs (from 38% for Air Force cadets

to 69% for Navy cadets, in 1973). Among those respondents who claimed

awareness of the various off-campus programs, the PLC program also received

the highest proportion of correct sponsor identification (U.S. Marine

Corps). Generally, recognition of these programs was at a level of 50%

or lower among ROTC cadets.

As expected, most men in ROTC claimed to have heard of the ROTC

program! However, a substantial proportion of the Army cadets did not

know of the existence of the Navy ROTC program (46%) or the Air Force

ROTC program (41%). Thirty-five percent of the Air Force respondents did

not know of the Navy program. But awareness of the services which sponsor

ROTC programs was 75% or higher in other instances.

Personal Sources of Information

Fathers, military recruiters (at school), and close friends were the

three major sources of information about military service indicated by

ROTC enrollees in both 1972 and 1973.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ENROLLMENT

General Reasons for Applying for ROTC

In general, "military career opportunities" and "travel, adventure,

and new experiences" were the two most highly supported reasons which

exert "strong influence" on the decision to enroll in ROTC programs, in

the opinion of respondents in 1973. The only exception occurred among

Navy cadets where slightly more respondents endorsed "the opportunity for

further academic education" than endorsed "military career opportunities".

"Service tö your country" (patriotism) is a reason which reportedly

decreased in influence from 1972 to 1973. In contrast, the "opportunity

for further academic education", "pay and allowances", and "benefits such

as medical care, BX/PX, etc.," are all reasons accorded increased importance

in 1973 by cadets in ROTC programs sponsored by the Army, Navy, and

Air Force.

• Specific Reasons for Applying for ROTC

Economic factors are generally the most highly endorsed considerations

for joining an ROTC program. Thus, the following specific reasons were

considered to exert strong influence in the decision to enroll in ROTC:

paid college tuition, payments to attend college (in spite of parental

income), the receipt of a monthly subsistence allowance, and obtaining

college expense money for two or four years. In general, economic

considerations were accorded significantly greater influence by respondents

in 1973 than 1972.

In addition, being able to attend the college of their choice was also

considered important by cadets in all three programs. Among Navy and

Air Force cadets, the choice of branch of service was also of considerable

importance. For the Air Force cadets, becoming an aviation officer was

the second most important factor. It was endorsed by 60% of the Air Force

respondents in 1973.

Conditions of ROTC Affiliation

In both surveys, the majority of the Army and Air Force Scholarship

holders indicated they would have joined the ROTC program even without

a scholarship. However, only 40% of the 1973 Navy Scholarship holders

indicated they would do the same.

In both surveys, over 60% of the respondents said they would have

joined without a subsistence allowance. These positive results are

tempered by the fact that, from 1972 to 1973, an increasing proportion

indicated they would not have joined the program without the allowance.

From 42% to 54% of cadets in 1973 said they would not have joined

ROTC if dropouts from the program during the first two years had to

repay the government for the funds they received.

Persons Influential in ROTC Affiliation

ROTC cadets chose the person most influential on their decision to

join ROTC from a list of alternative categories. The category of "parents,

friends, or relatives" was selected as the most influential category

by the majority of cadets in all three ROTC programs, in both years.

THE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF ROTC INSTRUCTION

Attitudes Toward ROTC Instructors and Coursework

The majority of ROTC enrollees thought their ROTC instructors were

'as good as" or "better than" their other college instructors, in both 1972

and 1973. About half felt they were as good, and an additional 30% to

40% thought they were better.

Respondents were somewhat less enthusiastic about the quality of ROTC

coursework. In 1973, 50% to 60% thought that ROTC coursework was about

as good as other courses, but only 15% to 20% thought it was better than

their other courses. However, Army and Air Force cadets gave more favor-

able assessments of ROTC coursework in 1973 than in 1972.

Comparison of Grades in ROTC with College Grades in General

Another way to evaluate the quality of ROTC programs is to compare

the grades men earn in ROTC to their general grades in college. Cadets

report receiving higher grades in ROTC classes than they do in college

clabses in general. This finding may be due to a variety of reasons.

The present data do not offer a definitive explanation but the results

suggest that difficulty in getting good grades in the program does not

seem to be a factor which might deter cadets from entering (or remaining

in) ROTC programs.

Suggested Improvements in ROTC

Cadets evaluated three general policy areas with respect to improve-

ment in ROTC. They overwhelmingly approved the idea of receiving college

credit for ROTC coursework. Only a minority favored the abolition of

drills and marching, and only a minority endorsed the concept of moving

ROTC off-campus. But among Army and Air Force cadets, there were signi-

ficant increases in the proportions who felt ROTC should be moved off-

campus from 1972 to 1973.

PREFACE

This Consulting Report indicates the extent of career motivation

among current enrollees in Reserve Officer Candidate Programs (ROTC) in

1973. Selected results from a similar survey conducted in 1972 are in-

cluded for comparison purposes. Additional 1972 and 1973 comparisons are

reported which indicate: (1) the levels of factual knowledge of, and

attitudes toward,military officer training programs; (2) factors related

to expressed interest in applying for enrollment in ROTC programs; and

(3) the perceived quality of ROTC instructional course work. In total,

These comparisons allow an assessment of ^changes in career potential which

may have resulted with the expiration of the draft, or occurred as a result of

other events or activities which transpired between 1972 and 1973.

This report is the second in a series of three reports which present

the results of a comprehensive 1973 ROTC survey of enrollment potential

and career potential for a variety of college-based military officer training

programs. The first report in this series is concerned with the potential

for enrollment in these programs among civilian youth who are college-bound.

The third report in the series is concerned with the career potential

of current enrollees in one of three "off-campus" military officer

training programs (ROC, AVROC, or PLC).

The 1972 and 1973 surveys were designed by Mr. George Mihaly and Mr.

Gideon D. Rathnum of Gilbert Youth Research, Inc. for the Department of

Defense. Gilbert Youth Research, Inc. was responsible for selecting the

1972 and 1973 samples, conducting the personal interviews, and performing

the data tabulations for both the 1972 and 1973 surveys.

Analyses of the data tabulations and report preparation activities

were performed by HumRRO Division 7 (Social Science), Alexandria,

Virginia, Dr. Robert G. Smith, Jr., Director. The Principal Investigator

was Dr. Allan H. Fisher, Jr. Dr. Richard J. Orend and Ms. Leslie S. Rigg

provided research assistance.

HumRRO also assisted in the initial questionnaire design and

development of the sample requirements for these surveys.

Helpful guidance in substantive aspects of the data analyses and

report preparation were provided by Col. Gerald Perselay (USAF), Director

for Precommissioning Programs (OASD, M&RA), and Mr. Samuel Saben, Manpower

Resource Analyst (OASD, M&RA). The technical monitor was Dr. Frank D.

Harding of the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL/MD).

The preparation of camera-ready copy of each report in this series

was performed by HumRRO for the Directorate for Manpower Research of the

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)

under Contract No. F41609-73-C-0030, Task Order No. 3 (HumRRO Project

DAD-C).

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

SUMMARY 1 Career Potential 1 Knowledge and Awareness of Military Officer Training

Programs 4 Factors Associated with Enrollment 5 The Perceived Quality of ROTC Instruction 7

PREFACE 9

INTRODUCTION 13

METHOD 15 Sampling Requirement 15 Sampling Procedures 15 Sample Comparability 17 Questionnaire 17 Administration 17 Data Analyses 18

RESULTS 19

I. CAREER POTENTIAL 19 A. Immediate Career Intentions 19

1. Intention to Remain in ROTC 19 2. Intention to Continue from Basic

into Advanced ROTC 26 3. Other Indices of Immediate Career Intentions . 32 Summary 40

B. Long-Range Career Intentions 44 C. Draft-Motivation 51

Army Draft-Motivation 53 Navy Draft-Motivation 55 USAF Draft-Motivation 55 Summary 58

II. KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF MILITARY OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAMS 61 Awareness of Officer Compensation 61 Attitudes Toward Officer Compensation 63 Awareness of Various Training Programs 66 Personal Sources of Information 71

III.FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ENROLLMENT 74 General Reasons for Applying for Officer Training. . . 74 Specific Reasons for Applying for Officer Training . . 78 Conditions of ROTC Affiliation ., 82 Persons Influential in ROTC Affiliation 83

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

page

IV. THE QUALITY OF ROTC INSTRUCTION AND COURSEWORK 89 Attitudes Toward ROTC Instructors 89 Attitudes Toward the Quality of ROTC Coursework .... 91 Comparison of Grades in ROTC with College Grades in

General 94 Suggested Improvements in ROTC Coursework 96

BIBLIOGRAPHY 99

APPENDICES

A. Detailed Sample Size Information For ROTC Program Enrollees 101

B. Comparability of 1972 and 1973 Samples of ROTC Enrollees 102

C. 1973 ROTC Survey Questionnaire 108 D. Approximate Tests of Statistical Significance. . . 119 E. Relationship of Regular College Grades and ROTC

Grades: 1973 Program Enrollees 120

12

INTRODUCTION

This survey was conceived as part of a systematic effort by the

Department of Defense to study enrollment potential and career potential

for selected college-based military officer training programs on an annual

basis. Previous empirical research concerning the attitudes of selected

ROTC enrollees toward program completion and/or a military career has been

conducted (Griffith, 1972 on USAF enrollees; N. W. Ayer, 1972 on Army

enrollees). However, these studies were not designed to provide a continuing

multi-service assessment of career potential but rather to indicate career

potential for selected ROTC programs at one point in time and/or to suggest

relationships which might be explored in future research, e.g., the relation-

ship of race to career intentions (Griffith, 1972). In contrast, the DoD

surveys ("ROTC Surveys") covered in this report are multi-Service, multi-

year assessments of career potential among enrollees in ROTC programs.

The initial DoD survey in this series (conducted in May 1972) was

designed to provide information on career potential, and on the level of

factual knowledge of, and attitudes toward, ROTC programs and off-campus

programs of officer training among current program enrollees (Fisher &

Harford, 1972). The survey also was designed to identify demographic,

attitudinal, and programmatic correlates of expressed interest in making a

career of military service. The present May 1973 survey constitutes a

replication of the May 1972 survey.

Continued research on career potential over time provides an on-going

measure of the acceptance of current ROTC programs among enrollees. Further,

13

it assures continued availability of current data necessary to appraise

the reactions of these potential officers to external events and program

modifications which may impact on their attitudes toward: (1) continued

enrollment in these programs, and (2) a future career as an officer in

the military service.

14

METHOD

Sampling Requirement

Sampling requirements for each survey were generated by HumRRO in

discussions with representatives of OASD (M&RA). Target populations were

identified to correspond with the major objectives of the present study,

e.g., to estimate career potential among current enrollees in ROTC. These

particular populations consisted of male enrollees in Army, Navy, and Air

Force ROTC programs.

In particular, the following distinctions were made: (a) branch of

Service (Army, Navy, or Air Force); (b) Basic course (freshmen/sophomore)

versus Advanced course (junior, senior); and (c) Scholarship status

(tuition, books, subsistence allowance) versus Non-Scholarship status

(subsistence allowance in Advanced course only). The sample requirement

consisted of 200 cases for each combination of the twelve Service programs

X the two course status conditions, for a total of approximately 2400 cases.

The same sampling requirement was used in the 1972 and 1973 surveys.

Sampling Procedures

For each survey, Gilbert Youth Research, Inc. drew the samples of

ROTC enrollees from population data provided by the respective Armed

Services. A basic list of institutions was compared to the Gilbert master

sample of colleges, with maximum overlap employed in the selection of

colleges. Next, Service population listings were employed to determine

the number of cases to interview per campus, to get the requisite number

15

of respondents by status (Basic/Advanced; Scholarship/Non-scholarship),

within Service. Given these numeric requirements by campus, ROTC

student listings were then sampled to obtain the names of enrollees to be

interviewed.

The above procedure was used to draw samples in both the 1972 and

1973 surveys. Two independent samplings were employed.

The sample size for each survey is summarized below, together with the

projected population of each ROTC program. (See Appendix A for detailed

sample size information).

SAMPLE SIZE

Population 1972 Survey 1973 Survey

Sample Size

Projected Population

Sample Size

Projected Population

Army ROTC 896 50,236 829 41,069

Navy ROTC 607 7,459 613 8,154

USAF ROTC 766 19,967 857 20,064

Totals 2,259 77,662 2,299 69,287

16

Sample Comparability

The 1972 and 1973 samples of ROTC enrollees were compared on a

series of demographic characteristics to determine the equivalence of the

two samples. The reason for these comparisons was as follows: If the

1972 and 1973 samples differed appreciably in demographic composition,

any differences in career intentions might be artifacts of these sampling

differences, as opposed to bonafide changes in attitude from 1972 to 1973.

There were no major, consistent differences in sample composition

from 1972 to 1973. The minor differences which were observed would not

be sufficient to jeopardize comparisons of rates of career intention from

1972 to 1973. Data on the comparability of the 1972 and 1973 samples is

given in Appendix B. Differences are discussed in the Appendix.

Questionnaire

An extended questionnaire was designed for the 1972 survey and

maintained in essentially the same form for the 1973 survey, for purposes

of comparability. See Appendix C for a copy of the 1973 questionnaire.

Adminis tration

All data reported in each survey were obtained from extended personal

interviews. In conducting these interviews, Gilbert Youth Research, Inc.

employs peer-group interviews in conjunction with local supervision to

increase the likelihood of valid responses. A systematic program of

interview verification is used to insure data quality.

17

Data Analyses

For each survey, results for each sample were weighted for extra-

polation to the respective populations. Data from concurrent ROTC

enrollees were weighted to represent the population distribution in Basic

and Advanced status, within Scholarship/Non-scholarship status, for each

of the three Armed Services.

Data analyses for the samples of ROTC enrollees consisted of tabula-

tions of each questionnaire item controlling on respondent status in these

programs (Scholarship/Non-scholarship by Service, and Basic/Advanced by

Service).

Tests of the statistical significance were performed manually on

the tabulated data to evaluate differences in rates of response to selected

questions in 1972 and 1973. All tests reported in Section I are "t-tests"

which compare the 1972 and 1973 rates of response in the projected popula-

tions, using the sample size (N) from each survey population as appropriate.

Tests reported in the other Sections are approximations to the "t-test"

procedure which employ the table look-up process given in Appendix D.

18

RESULTS

I. CAREER POTENTIAL

The major objective of this survey was to estimate the size of the

career population among enrollees in ROTC programs.

The career intentions of ROTC enrollees (cadets) were evaluated in

terms of their immediate career intentions and their long-range career

intentions. The distinction involves the willingness to complete the

undergraduate ROTC program (immediate goal) as opposed to making a career

as a military officer (long-range career intentions).

A. IMMEDIATE CAREER INTENTIONS

1. Întention to Remain in ROTC

Immediate career intentions were assessed by asking each cadet the

hypothetical question: "If you had no military obligation and were permitted

to leave your military officer training program, would you do so?" The

permissible response options read (a) "Yes, I would leave the program as

soon as possible," (b) "No, I would stay in the program," and (c) "I

don't know." Results appear in Table 1-1.

A substantial majority of cadets in each ROTC program (Army, Navy,

and Air Force) claimed they would stay in the program even if given the

opportunity to leave the program. In 1973, 67% of Army cadets, 84% of

Navy cadets, and 85% of Air Force cadets indicated they would remain in

ROTC, even if they had the opportunity to leave the program.

The 1973 results merit consideration in comparison with the 1972

results. The only significant change in immediate retention goals from

19

o H

en B-?

m

oo 00

l6^

o^ ON

< 00

B-8

00 CO in

,B-s

o o

co

a;

o u a w

3 H ■3 Q

CU to «

cd

c_> H

I

en

ON B-?

B-S

en

00

m

in

in

en ■

m

ON

3

ON

ON ON

^ s

B^

B~S

■u C cd cu

•H -M

Q) M

I U M CD

<D S-l cd u

h /-v 4-> £ *H a VJ

3 M 4-> O VJ !-< O a ex. P. <D 0 s:

■u c cd Q)

> C cd <D a) >

.—4

-H *r1

o ^ 4-1

00 in co B-?

• • • • en CN

ON O o

o

CN

00

en 6-S r--

ON ON

>> U cd co u o CO u

•a * .H CU 3 J3 O 4J

* a M >H

I

CU

1)

o u

M 4J

O c J2

en c r- cd ON o r-t «H

14-4

o •H ■u d

00 CM •H r^ CO ON T-H >^

H e t-H o cd K CJ

H4 •H 4-1

a) to o •H c 4-1 0) cd u 4J <u CO

M-l 4-1 CO •H td O s

20

1972 to 1973 was found for Navy enrollees. The immediate career intentions

of Navy cadets increased from 78% in 1972 to 84% in 1973. But for each

Service there was a significant change from 1972 to 1973 in willingness

to leave the program the negative response. For the Army, the rate of

negative response increased from 1972 (18%) to 1973 (24%). But for the

Navy and Air Force, there was a significant decrease, from 1972 to 1973,

in the percent who expressed the desire to quit the program. It is in the

Army program that the greatest dissatisfaction with ROTC is expressed.

In 1973, Army ROTC cadets were significantly more likely to express a

desire to leave the ROTC program (24%) , than were either Navy cadets (10%)

or Air Force cadets (9%). In 1972, differences between the Services in

this negative response were not as pronounced.

Detailed analyses were performed comparing 1972 and 1973 immediate

career intentions controlling on cadet status: Basic/Advanced and Scholar-

ship/Non-scholarship. Results are discussed below, by Service.

For the Army, Table 1-2 indicates that enrollees in the Non-scholarship

program account for the larger proportion of men who want to leave the

program. In 1973, the percentage of Non-scholarship enrollees willing

to leave the program was 24% (Basic) and 30% (Advanced). Comparable rates

for 1973 Scholarship enrollees were 6% (Basic) and 19% (Advanced); signi-

ficantly lower values in each case. Conversely, cadets with

Scholarships were more likely to express a willingness to stay

in ROTC than were Non-scholarship enrollees. (The "Don't Know"

rate was noticeably higher for enrollees in the Basic Non-Scholarship

21

en *^N T^ S-« C7N >-•

Q i-l W u

§ 5 u > M o 3 CNI^N u T--I&-S cu ON N-/

a ■H

JC 01 n (0 en ^N

.H r^ M O 0\ N_^

J3 r-H a

CO

i M c CO o < z M

CM -—s r^ &^ ON ^-X

iH

CN

LTl

en

CO

m NO

in

CN

ON

00

m en CN

as co

en

m

NO

o en

o

o o

ON

as ON

o

o o

ON

ON as

u M O u

01

td

O

o CO

9

^?

m

NO ■

ON -3-

6-?

6~«

CJ u co

■H -d a)

u o a) a u o CD -i cu -u H 4J « OJ > «DC« u rH

cj o

<?•«

o o

CN I

00 v£> NO 6*8 O • * ■ •

as cn NO o o

rH <r m O • • • • ON 00

N£> <r o o

CN

00

O

ON

00

u-i

o o o

4->

01 u oo o

a.

„■s

i

3 O 5 O

^

d o -a

cn c r^ cd ON o -H •H

U-l O •H

■u C M

CN •H r^ 01 ON

.H P^ <-i

| <-t O CO VJ u

M-t •r-l ■U

01 01 o •H c 4-1 a) CO ^ 4-1 cu 01

U-l 14-1 0) -r4 (0 o s

22

program than for other cadets. This may connote indecision with respect

to program continuation which could result in the loss of even more of

these men.) For the Army, the only significant change from 1972 to 1973

occurred for Advanced Non-scholarship cadets; a higher proportion reported

that they would leave the program if given the opportunity in 1973 (30%)

than in 1972 (19%).

Similar analyses were performed for Navy cadets. Results appear in

Table 1-3. In 1973, there were no significant differences in immediate

career intentions between Scholarship and Non-scholarship cadets or between

Basic and Advanced cadets. Regardless of the status of the cadet, about 81%

to 85% reported that they would stay in the program. Only two significant

changes were found from 1972 to 1973, and both favored immediate career

intentions. In 1973, a higher percentage of enrollees in the Advanced

Scholarship program (85%) said they would stay in ROTC, compared to 1972

(77%). There was also a significant change among Basic Non-scholarship

cadets between 1972 and 1973. In 1973, fewer cadets in this category

expressed a desire to leave the program if given the opportunity, and a

greater proportion indicated that they would stay.

The responses of Air Force cadets were also analyzed in detail. Results

appear in Table 1-4. In 1973, the vast majority of Air Force cadets

(over 80%) said they would stay in ROTC, even if they had an opportunity

to leave the program. There was only one significant difference from 19 72

* For consistency in reporting, enrollees in the Navy Regular program are called Scholarship enrollees, while enrollees in the Navy Contract (or College) program are called Non-scholarship enrollees.

23

CO Z o M H

W H

W

a

O U C

W

s-i GO O

u H

CO

co r-. ON

Q .H w u

§ ^ 1-1 > M O 5 CM )-i f-~

(X, ON

cx •H J3 w s-i to 00

.-1 r^ O a. x: <-i a

CO I M c CO o 

a H w u 3

1 > CM

00 r-. o c> S-l i-H

eu

a •H Ä to co S-i r-. tO ON

t-t rH o

X. CJ u M

CO S3 CM r^ ON H

s-s

iK°

6^

N

f>>^ w S

CO •H cd a c u o 3 M

•H •U O U U

■u C o & to 1) a

•H 4-J (X OJ T3 Ö O ,C 01 H 4J

£ S-< tO 0) H 0) >

QJ C CO S-l (U QJ tO > >-!

CJ> O O

r-l 00

CM

o

CM 00

CO CM

ON

MD

00

MO

CM

00

00

BNS

ON

ON ON

B-; ON

ON ON

o o o

&-S

o o

o

00

CO

oo

oo

O

CO

ON

00

00

NO

CM

o MD

vO

00

o o

*t

o o

ON

ON ON

o o o

^ u tO 00

en o u

V > tfl OJ

S-l

00 o S-l

(X

V

8 c

J2

C o

CO

I M

w 1-1

1

I

co c r» tO ON o H •H

»4-1

O •H u a

00 CM •H r-- en ON H t>.

|H E H O to U o

4-1 ■H 4-1

OJ en o •H a 4-1 0) tO S-i 4-1 OJ CD

14-1

IW U) •H to a s

24

m r~ ON

Q iH W O

1 §5 1-1 > ÖC o 3 CM H r^

o-.

a •H1

x co H co <r>

■H I-» o ON

•s tH

CO 1 M C to O <J 3 «

CN

ON

S-?

s-s

fr«

fr«

in

oo

co

NO

oo

oo

CM

o

ON

CO

00

NO

fr« ON

ON

ON

fr« o

o o

fr« ON

ON ON

6-8 o o o

& u PM

x: cn

cO .-I O X o

CO

3

fr«

fr«

fr«

fr«

>N~

co C o

•H ai 4-1 4-1 C a) a)

•H 4J TJ C cu M

•H <0 c u 3 ö£ 4-1 O U U o a a. a) O J3

c M (0 CD ai cu W

c_>

> C co (U ai

o o 4-1

ON 00

r». 00

ON ■

ON

00

m oo 4J o co u

r-H Q) 3 X! O 4J

ON

ON

> 0) cd

rH l-l 60

T3 O

3 a 0) X! 4J

CN

ON

o o

fr« O

O O

fr«

o o

äs? o o o

53 H

5 o c j2

a o

XI

(T) Ö r-^ co ON o iH •W

CM o •H 4-1 c

ÜC CN •H r~- cn ON r-t ^

,-H e -H o ca p o

cw •H 4J

01 CO o •H c 4-1 0) cfl w 4-1 4) CO

CH »4-1 CO •H CO n S

25

to 1973. Reported willingness to leave the program declined from 17%

(1972) to 10% (1973) among enrollees in the Basic Non-scholarship program.

However, additional analyses revealed that, in 1973, a significantly

higher percentage of Basic Non-scholarship cadets (10%) than Basic Scholar-

ship cadets (3%) would leave the program, given the opportunity. This

finding reflects a possible difference between Scholarship and Non-

scholarship enrollees with respect to career intentions a difference

also noted for the Army (Table 1-2) but not for the Navy (Table 1-3).

This finding is discussed below.

The following inter-Service differences are noted. Compared to

the other Services, the Army exhibits the greatest inter-program variability

in the percentage of cadets willing to remain in the ROTC program. This

variability appears to be centered around the question of Scholarship

or Non-scholarship status, rather than Basic/Advanced status or the date

of the survey administration. The Navy shows no corresponding inter-

program differences. The Air Force shows only rather minor differences

as a function of program status. The greater proportion and number of

Army cadets who wish to leave ROTC consist of enrollees in the Non-scholarship

program. In contrast, differences in immediate career intentions between

Army, Navy, and Air Force cadets who have Scholarships are minimal.

2. Intention to Continue from Basic into Advanced ROTC

The question of immediate career intentions was asked of Basic cadets

in a very explicit form. Each Basic cadet was asked if he intended to

26

continue into the Advanced program. Results appear in Table 1-5.

The majority of cadets said that they intend to continue from Basic ROTC

into Advanced ROTC. However, in 1973, Army cadets were significantly less

likely to expect to continue into Advanced ROTC (57%) than were cadets in

the Navy (85%), and the Air Force (84%). This finding was true only in

the 1973 survey. In 1972, there were no differences between the three

Services. Some events occurring between the administration of the two

surveys appear to have exerted a marked effect on program continuation

expectations of Army cadets in Basic ROTC.

Detailed analyses were performed to evaluate these findings.

The responses of enrollees were studied, contro'lling on Scholarship

or Non-scholarship status. Dividing respondents into Scholarship and

Non-scholarship categories showed that the decline in program continuation

intentions for Basic Army enrollees occurred among the Non-scholarship

cadets (Table 1-6). There was no change from 1972 to 1973 among Army

Scholarship enrollees. Indeed, the percent of Basic Army cadets in the

Scholarship program who express a desire to continue into the Advanced

program compares favorably with the rates of Navy and Air Force men en-

rolled in the Scholarship program (Compare Tables 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8).

These data further support the contention that Scholarship enrollees

have more favorable attitudes toward remaining in ROTC than do men who

do not hold Scholarships. In each Service, there is a significant differ-

ence between Scholarship and Non-scholarship cadets. Scholarship enrollees

are more likely to plan to continue into the Advanced program than are

27

H a

S-?

s^

6-8 vO 00 vO o • • e • ro 00 p». o 00 o

00 ov vO

ON

u H O « Q t-l W Ö U o

| co > 0)

5 0) rH H

o O H ^ !S a M w

g u H 5 O

M ctf H Z o o •H u to

cd o « H

5= .. o o H rH 00 o o rH pd

| 6-« < CM r«N r~ u-1 00 O z r~- 6-5 ■ ON \^* <r r- 1-^ O .H 00 o

* * * 6-8 ^s lO CTV vO O 6-? • - • • t^s vO CM o O m CM CM o

6^ O 00

ON oo 6-8

O O

u-l

U H

Q) O 3 Pi C

•H -a ■u aj C o o

c_> § >

o T3 ■u <: 13 o C ■u N

rH e rH o CO u O

VH •H 4J

<D CO O •H c ■U 0) a) r4 *J 1) CO

4-1 U-l CO •H cd Q S

28

2 O

w

to CO

oa

CO 0) 0)

o u c H

g u O

M pa

00

a CM •H rH 42 en >-l co

.H o

£1 O to

e CM o r^ Z cri

e-s

-K * * 6-5 O <r vO o • • • • CN m CN O u-1 (N CN O

r-l

S-! oo

vO

CM

O

o o

42 en u co

.H O

■s en

K vO ON

CNI

O

O o

vO I

w .-I

CN s^?

vO

00

o

o o

M 0) s

1 o

CD O z 3 H **"•». c 9 § 4J C T3 d O <D O CJ ■u

0 — O cfl co a *-> > 0) o o

^ fH SB Q TJ «U a 1 I 1

CD o 4J 4-> ß Ö

•u co C r^ CO ON o -H •H

m O •H ■u C

M CNI •H r-~ en a\ rH >>

.H 6 .H o <0 u CJ

U-t •H 4->

cu CO o •H c ■U



0> S-«

S.i VO

S-«

O O

CN 6-5

CN

CN 00

O

O O

Oj r-l

e-; o

6^

CTi

K

00

00

o CN O

o o

cu 2=

1 o

0) U z 9 H 0 9 1 •u C T3 3 o cu o o 4J

o 3 03 "e 4J > CD O o

T3 >■ z Q T) •< c 1 1 1 CO o 4-» 4-1 a a

a 5

CO Ö r-^ CO ON o .H •H

IM O •H 4-1 c

00 CN •H r~- en a> <-\ ►,

TH

B M o CO u o

M-i •H 4J

a) en o ■H c 4J <D ct) H 4-1 cu CO

IM 4-1 CO •H CO Q S

30

on r>»

a ON •H .H 2 en u A

.-i o

43 o

CO

a CM o r-»

55 o\

fr$ <N vO CSI o • • • • o o OS o 00 .-1 o

^8

ON

£ CN OS

6^ O « o o

55

8

3 00

w

x: CO u cfl

iH O

■8 CO

VO

B-S OS OS

6-S O

O O

3

H

00

OS

6^ O • O o

<D O 3 H C Q

•H PS ■U

C T3 O 0)

c_> U

O g ■u >

T> 13 < C ■U

G c M N

en cu o z

CU

CO

o Z

1

O Q

31

Non-scholarship enrollees. This finding held in both the 1972 and 1973

surveys. However, the percentage of affirmative response is above 75%

in each case with the exception of the Army Non-scholarship enrollees

in 1973.

3. Other Indices of Immediate Career Intentions

Three additional questions were employed to evaluate the willingness

of cadets to stay in ROTC:

(1) Their willingness to stay in ROTC without a Scholarship (this question applied to Scholarship enrollees only);

(2) Their willingness to stay in ROTC without a Subsistence Allowance (this question applied to cadets eligible to receive an allowance only); and

(3) Their willingness to stay in ROTC if college credit was not given for ROTC course work.

Previous results have suggested that Scholarship holders are highly

career-oriented, at least with respect to their intentions to remain in

ROTC their immediate goals. It is useful to determine the extent to which

this attitude is contingent upon the continued provision of these scholar-

ships. For this reason, cadets holding scholarships were asked if they

would remain in the ROTC program if the scholarship was not available.

In 1973, the majority of Army cadets (65%) and Air Force cadets (74%)

indicated that they would remain, even under this condition. Table 1-9

presents the results. But only 41% of the Navy cadets gave this response

in 1973 (and 50% in 1972). Continued participation in the Navy program

seems more dependent on scholarships than does continuation in either the

32

H

s

ro

ON B-J?

* ON CN o

6-?

O o

CO &

&-?

K ON r^ m CT> • ■ • • rH <r en ON 00 ■H ON

H

u H

s

3 H CO

5 PQ

a o to

0)

o u a w

re en M CO

rH O

■a CO

u H

s

ON

CO

6^?

B-?

ON B^?

CN

C3N B-e

en ö o

a o a) en fl o & en tu Pi

o u-i

o

NO

CM

r--

* oo

u-i

m

rH

-K

oo CN

ON

ON

00

NO

O

o o

B^S

o o

r>8 o o o

B-? o

o o

en a) o

a o Q

m c r^ cfl ON o rH •H

U-I o •H ■u c

U CN <H r-~ en ON rH >»

rH g rH o Ct) u U

U-l •H 4J

OJ en a •H c •Ul <u a VJ ■u a) en

U-J 14-1 w •H cfl P s

ON I

H

33

Army or the Air Force programs. However, if the scholarship programs of the

Army and Air Force were terminated, the risk in term of loss of cadets

to the programs could be substantial, involving as much as 28% (Army) and

21% (Air Force), based on the May 1973 data. In the case of the Navy,

termination of scholarships could result in the loss of over half the

cadet population.

Additional analyses of this question revealed a significant decline

from 1972 to 1973 in the willingness of cadets to stay in ROTC without

a scholarship. This finding held for each Service. Thus, no matter which

Service sponsors an ROTC program, there may be an increasing reliance on

scholarships as the vehicle needed to keep current scholarship holders

from leaving the program. A continuing trend in th2 same direction in

the future could be extremely damaging in officer recruitment and retention

for those Services which rely heavily on ROTC Scholarship enrollees (e.g.,

the Navy) for input, were the possibility of terminating the Scholarship

programs accorded serious consideration and publicity.

Each cadet receiving a subsistence allowance was asked if he would stay

in ROTC without the allowance. (In 1973, an estimated 41% of the Army cadets,

75% of the Navy cadets, and 51% of the Air Force cadets were eligible to

receive this allowance. The answers of only these respondents are presented

and discussed below). In both 1972 and 1973, a substantial majority of these

respondents said they would stay in the program without a subsistence allow-

ance. Results appear in Table 1-10. Significant changes from 1972 to 1973

were found in all three programs. Army and Air Force cadets were significantly

34

en

ON s^

oo • OO m

O

o o

8

CO w u

: w § 1 o gr a o s a 3 5 sä w

a w w o H z CO w H H CO CO m M :=> CO CO

< w a

H 3 O

E-t 8 s w

!-) O PQ H M o ÜJ Pi M

J S3 W M

CO ►j w < w H HJ CO »J

O O tf Ö s w o »

w

CO p

H l£>

00 00

H

SB

*t 00

143

e-s CO

o ON

B^S 00

CO NO

6-8

CM

in

ON

ON

O

o o

o

o o

6-S o o o

ON

ON ON

in

O

o o

en a o

a o OJ en 9 o p. en

en a) o

2

S

1

CO c r^- CO ON o r-l •H

14-1 O T-t 4-> a

00 CM •H r^ en ON .H >N

.-i 8 «-< O cfl VJ o

•4-4 •H 4-1

0) CO o •H c 4-1 CU ed u 4-1 CD en IH H-l CO •r-l rt a 5

s I

H W a H

35

less likely to say they would remain in the ROTC program in 1973 than

they were in 1972. Cadets in all three programs were significantly more

likely to say they would leave the program in 1973 than they were in 1972.

Thus, there seems to be an increasingly important role played by the sub-

sistence allowance in keeping enrollees in all three ROTC program.

A second noteworthy difference in Table 1-10 occurs between Army

cadets on the one hand, and Navy and Air Force cadets on the other. The

Army cadets show a significantly smaller likelihood of remaining in the

program without a subsistence allowance than do the Navy and Air Force

cadets. The Army, then, would seem to have a larger stake in maintaining

the subsistence allowance than do the other Services..

An examination of responses of 1973 Army, Navy and Air Force cadets

in detail provides only limited additional significant information (see

Tables 1-11 through 1-13). In each Service, whether the cadet is in the

Basic or Advanced program, or the Scholarship or Non-scholarship program,

a substantial majority claim they would stay in the ROTC program even

without a subsistence allowance. There are no significant differences be-

tween these categories. The pattern of more Army cadets than Navy or Air

Force cadets indicating an intention to leave if the allowance is eliminated,

stands up, regardless of program status.

Finally, each cadet was asked if he would stay in ROTC, were he not

to receive college credit for ROTC coursework. The overall response was

positive. In both 1972 and 1973, the majority of ROTC enrollees said they

would stay in the program even if credit were not given for coursework.

36

co w u

w z CO w H w CO > M M CO w « C_> P CO s <: o

H H

o a B PQ

M

5 O M i-J

o w H O CO Prf w Z a H ►j

>j g <J 53 H W CO

Q « i § o ts m

r-- OS rH

,, w CO <2 M

a •H

A tO 13 )-l a) cd o O §

■8 > 13

CO «i

h o

SB

s-s *J3

00

<N o>

6^ O • o o -I

to

O

'S CO

e-s ao CN

en

6^ IN

en

o

§

.*«

o o

a 9

3

o cu to

§ o. CO

to CU o

5

a

37

co

3

s 0 3 5 0 s SS o W ►J H

3 CO

H CO

s PQ 5 2 CO W H u CO > M M CO w PQ u S3 CO § <J o

H H b W o ►J

R CQ M

H Ü S M

(J CJ> W H O CO Pi W

w SB hJ H KJ

o ►J & < 2 H M CO

q g a < !=> ss o 13 en

r>» ON H

W CO

< CQ

pj ■H JS to ■a M 0) td a

rH ö O «

J3 > O T3

CO 1

<q c o z

B^S

a o

a o a) CO c o p. co CD

Cd

en CO

00

CO o

o o

T3 CU a

•—\ CN • o • oo o

a > 13

B-? lO o o

•H <3 1—1

43 en n m

.H O

o CO

o /■> • «S vO 0\

CO CO

PQ

EN; o CM

** <3\ OS

CN1

s

CD CU O

Z

I a o o

38

CO

e 5 £ HJ

u g c_> 5 o DE S3

3 s ,-J CO < M

CO w g z CO w H CO E h-l l-l CO w g CO

u

<: o H

B H o hJ

e H o S M

J o W H b CO pg w

W z -1 M a

q >i B a § CO to 3 5j

CO £> D o 3 CO

r^ ON ^H

• • W

59 M

CH •r7 .C CO X) u fl) 01 o

.H Ö o CO

J3 > o T3 CO <! a o z

6-«

a> ^D

O O

o o

T3 cu o

> p. T3

6^ in

cr> «* -*

O

o o

^? r--

oo

9* O

o o

CO

e o

a o

§ d

o a CO s Pi

en cu o

a

39

Results appear in Table 1-14. In 1973, more favorable rates of response

were given by Navy cadets (79%) and Air Force cadets (62%), than by

Army cadets (56%). Among Army enrollees, 31% indicated they would not

remain in ROTC without this incentive. In the Navy program, only 12%

said they would not remain. Army and USAF enrollees showed significant

decreases from 1972 to 1973 in their willingness to stay in ROTC if no

credit was given for coursework. Caution must be exercised in inter-r

preting these changes as trends, but it is difficult to overlook these

changes and the large resulting differences between the Army and Air

Force programs on the one hand, and the Navy program on the other. The

increase from 1972 to 1973 in the proportions who said they would leave

the program unless college credit was provided is substantial. The

total percentage who indicated this course of action in 1973 is now over

one-quarter of the total enrollees in these programs.

Summary

The reported intentions of cadets to remain in ROTC must be accorded

studied consideration. On the surface, their announced willingness to stay

in the program is high and favorable, although the Army program does not

engender a favorable attitude toward retention to the extent common to

the other services. The intention to stay in the ROTC program is lower

for Army enrollees than for Navy or Air Force enrollees, on almost all

questions. In 1973, about 67% of the Army enrollees indicated they would

stay in the ROTC program even if given the opportunity to leave. Comparable

40

* ■K co en

co ^s • • r^- <K CM m o\ \s vO CM

u iH H O Pi

5! co 00 en 5 CM s-^ • ■

r-~ 6-? co vO CTi ^^ r~- rH .H

vO

o o o

B-S o o o

§

o u o

§ § W M

c_> H g O Pi Pi

o S3 fa M

g >i w < > H M CO o

§

H O

to I

CO

w W

£

Ü

PM

PQ

U H

B-?

00

00 CM

&-S

H

B^J

vO

r«s

CO

CM v£5

ON

o CO

CM

CM /—V . . r». N en o o> •«— o CM

CO

CO

vO

u-1

CM

!*!

O O

Cn

cn cn

B-S

o o

B-S o o o

K o •H 1 cu 4-> a 00 4J £ £ •H o

w O CU cu — c u a co C c_>

cu o s o o >-• 55 Q a CO cu pi

4J CO Ö r~ cfl cn o H •H

4-1 O •H J-J c

bo CM ■H r~ CO as .H ►,

rH

S H o CO V4 o

iw •H ■U

CU CO o •H C 4-1 a) ca ^ 4J <u CO

«4-1

IW CO •H nj Q 5

.-H

I M

w

H

41

figures for the Navy and Air Force were 84% and 85% (Table 1-1).

A detailed analysis of each branch revealed that Army Non-scholarship

enrollees account for the large number who would leave the program

(Table 1-2).

Basic cadets were asked if they would go on to the Advanced program.

In 1973, the response was again overwhelmingly favorable among Navy and

Air Force'cadets. The Army cadets again were much less favorable

(Table 1-5). The relationship of intentions of continuing into the

Advanced program and holding a scholarship was noted (Tables 1-6 through

1-8). This relationship held in three branches; it was most pronounced

among Army cadets (Table 1-6). In each Service, the proportion planning

to enter the Advanced program was 90% or higher for Scholarship holders,

while the rate was lower among Non-scholarship cadets. In the case of

the Army, the rate was only 52% in 1973.

Cadets were asked directly if they would remain in the ROTC program

without a scholarship (if they held one) or without a subsistence allow-

ance (if they were eligible to receive one). In both cases, there was

a general decrease from 1972 to 1973 in willingness to stay in the pro-

gram and a corresponding increase in willingness to leave the program,

if the financial assistance was not available (Tables 1-9 and 1-10).

However, the proportion expressing a willingness to stay in ROTC did

not drop below 64% except in the case of Navy Scholarship holders

(Table 1-9). In this instance, only 50% in 1972 and 41% in 1973 expressed

the desire to stay in the Navy ROTC program without their scholarships.

42

It should be reiterated, however, that despite the fact that potential

retention levels remain high in 1973, there is a movement in the direction

of greater importance of financial incentives in maintaining retention in

ROTC programs. There is an apparent, corresponding decrease in the import-

ance of other factors over time, such as avoiding the draft (see Chapter I,

Section C), and service to country (see Chapter III).

A final topic discussed in this Chapter was the importance of

receiving college course credit for ROTC classwork. This question elicited

rather diverse results. The receipt of classwork credit was most important

to Army cadets and Air Force cadets, and least important to Navy cadets.

However, in the 1973 survey, over 55% of ROTC enrollees indicated they

would stay in the program without college credit.

The overall pattern observed in this Section allows for two possible

general conclusions. First, with the emphasis on 1973 results, the Army

is having (or will have) a more difficult time retaining enrollees than

the other Services; and this retention is most heavily dependent on out-

side incentives, such as money and college credit, for the Army compared

to the other Services. Second, with the emphasis on possible trends

from 1972 to 1973, there is a tendency toward greater dependency on out-

side incentives for the retention of enrollees in all three ROTC programs,

with a greater reliance on financial aid and/or college course credit

as incentives to keep current enrollees in each program.

43

B. LONG-RANGE CAREER INTENTIONS

Another important consideration in assessment of ROTC programs is the

extent to which enrollees intend to pursue a career of military service.

Each cadet was asked the following question: "Do you plan to stay in the

Service at the end of your initial obligated period of service as a

commissioned officer?" The respondent was permitted one of four response

options: (a) "Yes, I plan to make the Service my career," (b) "Yes, I plan

to stay in for a while," (c) "I am undecided," and (d) "No, I plan to

leave when I complete my obligation." The first two responses may be taken

as indications of long-range career intentions. Results appear in Table 1-15.

In 1973, 25% of Army cadets, 31% of Navy cadets, and 42% of Air Force

cadets indicated that they intended to stay in the military service beyond

their initial tour of duty. In contrast, 12% of Air Force cadets, 17%

of Navy cadets, and 32% of Army cadets said they planned to leave the service

after completing their first tour. The remaining respondents (43% to 51%)

were undecided.

The only important differences between 1972 and 1973 occurred among

Army respondents. In 1973, a significantly higher proportion of Army cadets

planned on leaving the service, and a significantly smaller proportion

planned military careers, compared to 1972.

As noted in the previous section on immediate goals, there were major

differences between the Armed Services in the short-range career objectives

of their cadets. The Army trailed the Navy and the Air Force in its ability

to induce short-range career intentions among its enrollees. Conversely,

44

CN

CN «*

*_T" co •~\ "*> \o oo r^ B-? • • •

u <7\ v-' r^ <* m H rH CN iH <r § • PM n < CO CN •-N a\f *Sm o :=> r~- »^ • •

o\ >—• CN <f ON rH CN iH <a-

co

\4t>

CO

,N 00

ON o>

o o o

H

g

6-S

M

<r • <-< en

W ô\ * • 00 CSI ■-I

m •

00 CN

1-i

vo' ^<* • • lO CN

St

m

m

o

CN

CN

6-8 ON

B-« O

O o

6-S

6-S

00

CN

* r^

cn oo

CO cn

I "N o 00 00 • • • 00 m o -H .-i <r

m CN

o^

B-S o o o

m

M . S 0J cO u CJ <• T3 Pi u «0 •H •H

1 (U 4J M O 00 d) •H >^ O cu c u rH CO M-l T3 O CO ä 4J

CO 5

■4-1 o c c o o

O -U 4-1 Cu v nj DH DO

P.-H <D S iH > O ,J0 KUO ai iJ

co C r-* cfl ON O tH •H

CM o •H 4-1 c

oo CN ■H r-- CO OS .H ^

<-t e ■H o <0 n Ü

M-l ■H 4-1

aj CO o ■H c 4-1 0) CO (-1 4-> <u CO

U-l cu CO •H CO Q s

45

the Army led the other services in the percentage of cadets who would quit

the program or who plan to leave the service after their first tour of

duty. The data in Table 1-15 show similar findings with respect to long-

range career intentions.

Thus, the data suggest that the Navy and Air Force should be capable

of retaining a higher proportion of their ROTC enrollees than does the

Army. More detailed analyses were done, by Service, to evaluate this

hypothesis.

Among Army cadets, Scholarship holders are significantly more likely

to be interested in a long-range military career than are Non-scholarship

cadets (Table 1-16). This relationship is true for both Basic and Advanced

cadets. Conversely, Non-scholarship enrollees are significantly more likely

to want to leave the service after their first tour of duty than are

Scholarship holders. These relationships are significant in both surveys.

In addition, the proportion of Army Non-scholarship enrollees planning

to leave the service increased from 1972 to 1973. Thus, a greater propor-

tion of Non-scholarship cadets said they do not plan military careers in

1973, than in 1972. In 1973, among Advanced Non-scholarship cadets, this

proportion (40%) exceeds the proportion who are undecided about a military

career (36%). This is the only instance where this finding occurs, i.e.,

where the modal response is a plan to leave the Service.

For the Navy respondents, a somewhat different pattern exists

(Table 1-17). Differences in career intentions between Scholarship and

Non-scholarship enrollees do not exist for the Navy cadets, as they did for

46

en

tn CU cu

u M o n

j3 0) M n)

rH O £ o 00

o SB

Q W U

B-«

CN

vO

1

CO

3 PQ

CN

e-s

e-?

B-«

<T)

m

a\

in

vO

CN

oo

CN

* 6-S rH O • • o o -d- o

rH

8* CN O • • rH o CO o

•H

* 6< 00 O • • CN o en o

rH

S-« r^ O • • <r o CN o

CN

3

I J2

CO

CO rH O

■s CO

W o

>: 5

CO

o M

en\ ov

B-S

B^8

B-8

CN

OO CN

CN

en

CN

vD

"OS

O

CN

B-S

en

rH

CN

o in

u-i

CN

B-? O

O O

B-S CN rH • • en rH

O s SO o • • rH

o o r-i

vD O • • r-l

o o

rH

M

9 5

C CD CO <D 4-1 rJ •H cfl rH O

CU CJ

•rl CU

rH Ofl «0 o o -I

fl c t^- CO o> CJ rH •H

4-1 o •H u

& CN •H r- co as rH >,

rH g rH o CO u O

IM •H 4J

CU CO Ü •H c w cu CO r-l JJ (U CO

o » I*

47

n r- ON

Q H en

g u

Ö 5

00 > O U 3 CM

o, c^ rH

o. •H Ä

CO 1-1 « en

.-I r^ o ON

JA rH CJ U

CO 1

M CO

C 53 O « z CM

r«« ON

6-S

s^

6-s

o

■ 00

en co

IN CM

NCO

ON

IN

■

m

*co

CM

vD

in

ON

CM m

CO

CO

CM

vo

CM

ON

ON CM

* y3

UD

O CO

00

ON ON

6-8 CM

O O

6-S

o o

o

o o

CO

i 3 CO

r^ ON

O H w

en o 9 5 u > M o 5 CM

V-l ON CL, rH

a ■H X! en CO Kl r^. crj ON

rH u rH O M

S3 co PQ CM

^

N

X

CO CM

r^"~ ^vo • • CM O rH

CM

IN

Si-

rH

• • ^f CO rH

m

vo cp

rH

■ • CO CO CM rH

rJ 0) cd a)

4-1 M •H cfl

• CM

ON

IN m

oo

in

^s ON rH • • 00 rH

O O rH

r^ O

m rH

o o i-H

rH O • • m rH

o o rH

xD ON • ■

rH ON ON

CD a

•H

IX Co .C

al U

fc» ° Ctj IM 4J CO

T3 a)

T3 •H U 0)

-a

IM 0

e c - ° o a in TH

O 4-1 4J a. CD cri ÖH SO «I SH tScSfS CD h3

CO 2 IN cfl ON O rH •H

IM O ■H 4-1 C

60 CM •H IN U) ON rH ►.

rH

B rH 0 Cfl u O

IM •H 4-1

CD en U •H a 4J

CD Cfl U 4-1 CD en

IM l« en •H cfl S 5

48

the Army cadets (Table 1-16). In the 1973 survey, career intentions for

Navy cadets are a function of the academic status (Basic/Advanced) of the

cadet. Table 1-17 shows that, in 1973, a significantly higher proportion

of Basic cadets plan to pursue military careers than do Advanced cadets.

This finding holds for both Scholarship and Non-scholarship cadets. The

reason for a lower rate of career intentions among the Advanced enrollees

is not known.

Among Navy cadets, there was only one significant difference in

career intentions from 1972 to 1973. Among enrollees in the Basic Non-

scholarship program, intentions to leave the Service after the initial

tour decreased from 30% in 1972 to 17% in 1973.

Results for Air Force cadets are similar to the results for the Navy.

In the 1973 Air Force survey, Advanced cadets were less likely to plan a

military career than Basic cadets (Table 1-18). This result agrees with

findings for the Navy (Table 1-17). From 1972 to 1973, there was a

significant decrease in the proportion of Air Force cadets in each of the

Advanced programs who planned to "stay in the Service for a while". But

this finding was offset by an increase in the intention to make the

military service a career.

The Air Force data in 1973 also resembled the Navy data in that there are no significant differences in career intentions between Scholarship and Non-scholarship cadets in either Service.

49

CO

CD

U

u

X! co

rH o

■a en

I a o Z

s-s

s-?

CO CN

00

CN

CN

CO

o CN

o

o

\o

rH o • ■

t-l o o rH

o o • • i-l

o o rH

en 8*

■ ■

■-I CTi

CTN o • • rH

o o

CO

co r-^ CTN

Q rH W u

§ % M > M o 3 CN

U o\ tu r-l

o, •H X

CO CO M 1^. * o-.

rH c_> rH O H

'S 3 c/o «

CN

rH

M

r>?

8^

M

o> CN

vO

CO

CO

a § 00 rH

§ a, as u

i «I GO 4) a r-l

33

CN

PI

oo CN

v\0

-3-

^D

u-l

H

rH

m

rJ a) cd a) 4-> u •H cd

CD u

•H > CD

C/5

^ ° cd u-i 4J

T3 CD

XI •H O OJ -a

u-l

o

ON

r>S

o o

o> ON

o o o

00

IH O

a a _ o o

O 4J 4-1 a HI 4 DH M

t" M ^ > O Xi cd o o CD rJ

CO a r^ CO c^ o rH •H

CH o •H •u c

So CN •H P^ CO CTv rH >*

rH s rH o CO r-l u

4-1 ■H 4-1 «| CO

o •H c 4-1 4) CO U 4-1 CD CO

o >

50

C. DRAFT-MOTIVATION

The effect of draft-motivation on enrollment was assessed retro-

spectively by asking each respondent this question: "If there had been

no draft and you had no military obligation, do you think you would have

enrolled in a military officer training program?" Responses were classi-

fied into three categories of (a) "true volunteers", (b) "Draft-motivated",

and (c) "don't know".

Since draft motivation is now reported by only a minority of respondents,

results will be discussed in terms of the percent of true-volunteers in

the study. For perspective, results for the total enrollees in Army,

Navy and Air Force ROTC appear in Table 1-19.

The majority of ROTC enrollees were true-volunteers, in both 1972 and

1973. Thus, the majority of men in each ROTC program claimed that they

would have enrolled, even in the absence of a draft or military obligation.

There were differences between the Services in the reported rate of

true-volunteerism. In 1973, a higher percentage of Navy enrolleees (84%)

and USAF enrollees (84%) were true-volunteers, than were Army enrollees

(66%). Similar findings were noted in 1972 with the Air Force (77%) and

Navy (70%) having higher true-volunteer rates than the Army (61%).

For each Service, there was a significant increase in the report of

true-volunteerism from 1972 to 1973. Navy ROTC enrollees showed a

particularly substantial increase in true-volunteerism from 1972 (70%)

to 1973 (84%). However, it is important to also review the results at a

51

en r- ON

oo

* o o o

3 B^S

■H CM

.e~«

o o T-l

s-s 00

00 ON

O

o o O

3 I 6-S

00

O oo CM

.S^

o o

ON •-t

I M

s 9

CO r- ON

6^

* CM

CM m

ON

ON ON

CM

ON B*£

O CO

co

it! o o o

u CO

vw d O 4J iH

C O >

o c 0) 60 O 2 cj a

4-1 CO H m <D <_> ei 1

-a a)

■u

>

o X

<4-l cd u a

ä

c o Q

co c r~- id ON o rH •H

U-) O •H 4J c

60 CM •H r-^- W ON .H >>

iH | .H 0 cd >-l o m •H

4J QJ en a •H C 4-1 CJ cd u 4-1 OJ CO

IH cn •H cd a 5

52

more detailed level of analysis, i.e., with the distinction made between

Scholarship or Non-scholarship status, and between Basic and Advanced

programs.

Army Draft-Motivation

The majority of Army enrollees were true-volunteers in 1972 and 1973,

regardless of their status (Basic/Advanced; Scholarship/Non-scholarship).

However, the highest rates of true-volunteerism were reported by enrollees

in the Basic Scholarship program (over 83%), while the lowest rates were

reported by enrollees in the Advanced Non-scholarship program (about 55%).

Results appear in Table 1-20.

There were no significant increases in true-volunteerism from 1972 to

1973. Indeed, the only change of any size was noted for enrollees in the

Basic Non-scholarship program. This increase approached, but did not

achieve, statistical significance. (Since so many Army men are in this

category, the increase may be important as a practical matter in spite of

the lack of statistical significance).

Although an increase in true-volunteerism from 1972 to 1973 was

previously shown for Army enrollees in total (Table 1-19), the statistical

significance of the increase is in part attributable to the larger aggregate

sample size upon which the data in Table 1-19 were tested.

53

Q ci W r^

g ^1

u e*

5 iH

H > O U 3 <M

PM ON

a M •H x: en u (0 ro

.H r>» O o\

x: u rH u M

C/D

1 sa c PQ CM o r^ 2

6-8

B-?

M

6*

8< CM r^ H O • • • * m en -H o in <r o

<r 00 00 o • • 4 ■ ^r co rH o m «* o

i-H

6-S 00 CM o O • • « • r- O CM o o en o

iH <T U") o • • * • O m <r o \£> en o

2 o H H

M H O S H b

fa 3 o u H ss •• w w H Vi x <d W cq

CO Q r^ W ON u .H

5 > g 5 CM M r~- oo o\ o rH M

Px

0. •H X! tn en t-i r^ ca CT\

.-1 U iH o M

ja o S3 C/3 pq CM

6-8

CO

o

6-?

M

CO 00

00

oo

CO

CM

.-I CM

• in H

CM

ro

CT\

6-8

o o

6-8 O

o o

iN!

O o

6-8

as

O CM

M-l o ■u

c &

1) T3

o c 60 o n> a 4-J to CO 1

VJ XI 0)

V •Ul CJ CO 4-1 > § •H

4-J § 5 f d

4-> ■u a> <4-l

2 CO

a I 54

*" F

Navy Draft-Motivation

The majority of Navy ROTC enrollees were true-volunteers in both 1972

and 1973, regardless of program status. The highest rate of true-

volunteerism in both 1972 and 1973 was found for enrollees in the Basic

Scholarship program. The lowest rate in each year was found for enrollees

in the Advanced Non-scholarship program. Results appear in Table 1-21.

There was a significant increase in true-volunteerism from 1972 to

1973 for Navy ROTC enrollees in each program status . There was a corres-

ponding decrease in draft-motivation for Navy enrollees in each program

status. (These results contrast sharply with the findings of no change

from 1972 to 1973 for the Army, as shown in Table 1-20.)

It seems reasonable to infer that draft-motivation is rapidly de-

creasing in importance as a factor in the enrollment of young men in

Navy ROTC.

USAF Draft-Motivation

There was a high rate of true-volunteerism for Air Force ROTC enrollees,

in both 1972 and 1973. In 1973, over 79% of USAF enrollees characterized

themselves as true-volunteers, regardless of program status. Results

appear in Table 1-22.

From 1972 to 1973, there were increases in the rate of true-volunteerism

for each category of respondent. However, the increases achieved

statistical significance for only those men in the Basic Scholarship program

55

CO 0) 0)

rH r-l O 1-1 Ö w

§ VI GO o V4

23 CM o M u H H < q > Pi M H O g SB «< a E 4-1 1 e

cu Q »M

(M fn 3 O c_>

£ w w H CO

<3 w eq

M

PM

x: w u n)

i-i o

CO I 0 o

23

PM

en n cfl

.H o

J= o CO

&•«

S-?

s~?

H

* * &* <r c* m 00 • • • ■ CO ^r iH a\ r>» CM ON

c* l-s -* o • • • • CM m n o m o- o

1-i

* * 6* 00 co o .H • • • • IN vO iH o 00 -H o

iH

o\ o rM. o • • ■ • vO o CO o m <r o

3

u

M

6-S

e~s

6-S

* 00

CM

Ox

00 • CO 00

o CM

CO en

oo

CM «

m

vo

CM

o o

o o o

CM

3

■* O • • o o

o

o 8* o • ■

■H o o

O 4J a

u TJ o a GO o 0) oj u CO

03 <3

a» 0) 4-1

9 H

CU

T3 «J 4J M >

I 4-1 u-, cfl

8

c

4-1 en c r^ CO OS o rM •H

UM o •H •u Ö

GO CM •H r-~ CO o> rH |Vi

^M e r-M o a) u u

MM •H 4J

« CO O •H c 4J 1) cd Vl 4-1 a) CO

UM <4M CO •H cfl P 3

56

53 O M

>

CO 0) u rH

M on 5 o >

CM 5 CM

a r-i •H ja to M CO en

.-1 r^ o c* Ä CJ rH o H

00 oo

c PQ CM o f».

53 eyv

if-?

Sv?

6*

6-8

a»

in

en

in

en oo

s

o o CM

CM

PI en

oo

8«« oo <*

• • o ejN

C7\

9< >» rH • • en O

O i-l

6< o\ O * • o o

o rH

a* r^ o • • i-l o

o

en r^

Q CT\ w rH o

6 % efl > U OO 5 CM

o ON !-i i-l

PM

D. ■H .ß

CO u en cfl

o CJ l-H

fH

o CO 3

PQ CM I-« a\ iH

6-8

IN

6-8

iH!

CM

CO oo

00

CM ON

in oo

O

in

O CM

in

00 O

o o

6-8 o o o

ON

e-s o

o o

-o M 0) 0) 4J a) CO 4-1 >

4-1 O 4J § ■H

4J 8 a rH O ä >» 4-1 00 O Q) U-l m <D p. 4-> W s CO a

0 CO (U H Q Q u pd 1 1

4-1 en c 1-^ CO O-N a H •H

M-l O •H

4-1 c oo

CM •rl r- CO CJN rH ►,

rH e rH o CO u CJ

M-l •rH 4J

a) CO o •H c 4-1 0) CO (-1 4J

4—i CO

IH CO •H CO Q 5

CM CM

I

9

57

and in the Advanced Non-scholarship program. Nonetheless, these increases

are noteworthy, since the rate of true-volunteerism in these categories

was reasonably high in 1972, minimizing the likelihood of a substantial

increase.

Summary

In each service, a higher percentage of Basic ROTC enrollees were

true-volunteers than Advanced enrollees. Also, a higher percentage of

Scholarship Program enrollees were true-volunteers than were enrollees in

the Non-scholarship program. There was also an interaction between program

type and Basic/Advanced status. For each service, enrollees in Basic

Scholarship programs had the highest rates of true-volunteers, while

enrollees in the Advanced Non-scholarship programs had the lowest rates

of true-volunteers. These findings held for 1972 and 1973.

With the termination of the draft, one would expect more enrollees to

be true-volunteers (and fewer enrollees to be draft-motivated). The

effect would be expected to appear first among Basic enrollees, i.e.,

men whose enrollment decision was made in the last year or so during a

period when draft calls were being reduced. (Presumably, all current

Advanced enrollees joined ROTC in the draft-environment.) In fact, there

was a significant decrease in draft-motivation for enrollees in the

Basic Scholarship programs of the Navy and Air Force, but not in the Army.

Although increases in true-volunteerism were noted for enrollees in each

of the Basic Non-scholarship programs, the increase achieved statistical

significance only for Navy men.

58

However, previous data on the immediate career(objectives of enrollees

suggests some caution with respect to the retention of future cadets.

Their decisions to stay in ROTC may be contingent upon the continuation of

their scholarships, their subsistence allowance, and/or their receipt of

college credit for attending ROTC courses. Thus, the finding of increasing

"true-volunteerism" is not synonymous with an expectation of increased

military career intentions..

It is useful to study the relationship between draft-motivation and

career intentions directly. Table 1-23 presents data for enrollees in the

Basic Scholarship programs sponsored by the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

The data are from the 1973 survey. In each Service, men who state that

they plan to make a career of military service have the highest percentage

of true-volunteers. The lowest percentage of true-volunteers is found among

either those men who plan to leave the Service upon completion of their

initial obligation, or those men who are undecided with respect to their

long-range career intentions.

In summary, the relationship of draft-motivation and career

motivation appears to be as follows:

As higher percentages of true-volunteers enter ROTC as basic enrollees, there should be a corresponding increase in the percentage of cadets who report long-range military career intentions.

For other information which might be useful in the development of

strategies to increase long-range career motivation, the reader is referred

to Section II (awareness of military pay), Section III (reasons for initial

enrollment in these programs), and Section IV (quality of ROTC instruction).

59

01 01 0 > -H (0 0) B ►J 01

-rl 01

01 .C

01 o u

0) « 0*J U

M O

*o <» ■

■ 1 o c* o o 00 iH H

00 00

CXI o>

o o

o o o

9*

SS o o O

o M C H

w o 3 to

! 3 i

c/i O Z H O

i-i e. S5 H -H O Z .£ M W W

§ i ü 5 H "3

It] o W c/J

(0 tu

PQ

01 0) Ü > -rl

-J 0)

00 i-~

ei fM

o ^ •H 01

B 0)

01 01 on u

0) o

0) ■H

g B 01 01 ►J 00

•a 01

•o ■H o 01

•o c 3

>.-H to X u

00 3 01 ü 1-

-H 01

t 0)

01 01 oi CJ

00 00

o>

00

O 00

ON

CM r» oo •-!

r-i

o o o

o o o

M o o o

o o o

o c c

o o

o o o

o o o

(-1 CM

1 s

>M (0 o u

U T3 0 0 00 o oi a

SI

01 01 4J

5

0)

o)

S 8

0)

*

60

II. KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF MILITARY OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAMS

In the design of this research, it was assumed that program aware-

ness functioned as a logical prerequisite to the formation of, favorable

attitudes toward the various programs. For current ROTC enrollees, it was

assumed that they could not recommend a program to their friends effective-

ly unless they knew something about it. Hence, questions on program know-

ledge and awareness were posed to all ROTC enrollees. The questions

were designed to assess their knowledge and awareness of ROTC and off-

campus military officer training programs. Particular emphasis was placed

on the topic of officer pay, due to the increases in military compensation

which preceded each survey administration. Other questions concerned

awareness of the various programs by (1) name and (2) sponsoring branch

of service. Finally, a question about the source of information about

these programs was employed.

AWARENESS OF OFFICER COMPENSATION

Each respondent was asked to: (1) specify the date of the most recent

pay increase for beginning officers, and (2) specify both the current

total entry earnings (pay and allowances) and the current entry base pay

for an officer. Results appear in Table II-l.

Among Army ROTC enrollees in 1973, 40% knew the date of the last pay

increase, and 55% correctly estimated the current total entry earnings of

a military officer ($601-$800/month). About 56% correctly estimated the

61

o M

% C/3 a w

I u Pi w u M Pn Pn o

H M ►J

w CO

CO

* 00 co as

co /■N • • • r-- 6-S O r*» cO

O ON v u-i •» <t H i-l

CO CM ^^ • • • r~ B~S CTi CM vO (Ti N-X <r m m

CO **N • r~ ^; r--

c_> (Tv ^-^ en H .-1

§

&Z

CM U-l

in

§

en

00 CM /—\ • • . r^ s-? -tf o CM ON v~x <r m ^D

* o o vO

» • • o m m <■ m m

CM *■> • • • r- 6-S CT> r^ o- o\ v^ CO -tf m

o u § 1-1

OJ OJ i Ü /~s

CO Ü I-I •^ J3 0) ■H o U-l 4-1 W IM \o u-i a 53 IM </> O Q

>> 4J 0) o —' s i-H a M fc£ 4J £ O H co O d n) 00 4J m 9) M 4J a a m M cu o •H W </> M J3 fe. H e >«• O •• 4-> (0 U-l u « PV) U-l cfl o >,

c U-l O W cd 4J -H o u 4-> PM

0) u a) a OJ

0) 00 ET 3 cu

o o 4J o 1 J-> O CD i-i a cd OJ c S cd

-3 « <D 0) Q £ (2 w cu aJ 1 1 1

CN CO r-» r- o\ a\ i-i I-I •

4J

frfr c cd cd o 3 3 •H C C U-l cd cd •H

>-> •-> a £ £ bo

•H CO CO CO cd cd > 5 >t

.H >^ ►* H OJ cu CO

££ CJ •H

3 3 4J cn OT CO

•H CN CO 4-1 r^ r~ CO o\ <J\ 4J iH rH CD

0) W U H a) a) * » O CO 05 4J

§g CS t^

4J 4J O cj O r-l (1) OJ W U P. U U O o o VJ o o U-l

cu CU OJ

So o 0 OJ l-i

• • aj M U-l H U-l O •H 2 o

I H H

3

62

amount of officer base pay ($550/month). Except for an increase in

awareness of the correct amount of total entry earnings, 1973 and

1972 Army ROTC respondents reported essentially the same levels of

awareness of officer compensation.

Among Navy ROTC enrollees in 1973, 37% knew the date of the last pay

increase, 52% correctly estimated total officer earnings, and 63%

correctly estimated entry base pay. Findings for the 1972 Navy ROTC

sample were consistent with findings for the 1973 sample, with the ex-

ception of a decrease in knowledge of the date of the last pay increase.

Among Air Force ROTC enrollees in 1973, 51% knew the correct date of

the last pay increase, 47% correctly estimated total officer entry earnings,

and 44% correctly estimated the amount of officer entry base pay. (The

latter was a significant decrease from 56% in 1972.)

ATTITUDES TOWARD OFFICER COMPENSATION

Cadets were also asked to estimate whether the total entry pay for

military officers was more, less, or about the same as the earnings of a

college graduate in his first (civilian) job. This evaluation provides an

important test of the hypothesis that accurate knowledge/awareness of

pay and compensation is prerequisite to a favorable attitude towards pay.

The data suggest that this hypothesis is not valid. Results appear in

Table II-2.

63

ESTIMATES OF THE EQUIVALENCE OF STARTING PAY FOR MILITARY OFFICERS AND COLLEGE GRADUATES IN CIVILIAN JOBS

Base: Program Enrollees

Compared to Civilian Earnings , Military Entry Pay is:

ARMY ROTC 1972 1973 (%) (%)

NAVY ROTC 1972 1973 (%) (%)

AIR FORCE ROTC 1972 1973 (%) (%)

More 22.6 28.8 17.3 19.9 23.4 42.1

About the same

Less

45.0 45.3

30.3 22.3

44.0 42.0

36.1 35.5

44.8 37.9

29.9 18.5

Don't know/ No Answer 2.1 3.6 2.6 2.7 1.9 1.5

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.1% 100.0% 100.0%

Difference from 1972 to 1973 was statistically significant.

TABLE II-2

64

Estimates of the equivalence of beginning military and civilian pay

provide very favorable evidence about how ROTC cadets view their prospect-

ive financial compensation as military officers. Table II-2 shows that

approximately 38% to 45% of the ROTC cadets in each service view military

starting pay as equivalent to civilian starting pay for a college graduate.

More importantly, an additional 20% to 42% in the 1973 sample (and 17%

to 29% in the 1972 sample) view military pay as being more than starting

civilian pay. This means that in each service, 60% or more of the cadets

feel their starting pay will be as good as, or better than, the starting

pay for college graduates in civilian occupations. Whether this estimate is

correct or incorrect is not as important as what may be interpreted as a

general level of satisfaction about the relative worth of entry pay

for military officers.

Significant changes from 1972 to 1973 support this conclusion. Changes

are in the direction of an increased estimate of the relative favorableness

of military pay. More favorable results are noted for both Army and Air

Force cadets. However, there are still substantial differences between the

services. For example, Navy cadets view military pay in a less favorable

way than do Army or Air Force cadets. There is no apparent reason for

this difference.

In summary, this research suggests that ROTC enrollees in both 1972 and

1973 possessed less than complete knowledge with respect to the economic

benefits of military service as an officer. In each survey, only about half of

the respondents could accurately specify the total earnings of an entry officer,

although in 1973 from 44% to 63% knew the correct amount of entry base pay.

65

The importance of this lack of knowledge is mitigated by a generally

favorable view of the equivalence of military pay and civilian pay. Given

this attitude, the Service would not expect to lose enrollees due to

competition with civilian employers over pay and compensation.

AWARENESS OF VARIOUS TRAINING PROGRAMS

In evaluating awareness of the various college-based military officer

training programs, each respondent was asked to: (1) indicate if he had

heard of each of the following programs: ROC, AVROC, PLC, and ROTC; and

(2) identify the service(s) which sponsored these particular programs.

The findings on claimed awareness of the programs by name are presented

first.

In both surveys, essentially 100% of "the respondents claimed to have

heard of ROTC programs. Results appear in Table II-3. But awareness of

the other (off-campus) programs was much lower than awareness of ROTC. For

example, claimed awareness of ROC (15%) and AVROC (26%) was relatively low

among 1973 Army ROTC enrollees. Among 1973 Navy ROTC enrollees, awareness

of the Navy-sponsored ROC and AVROC programs was higher than it was for

Army or Air Force respondents, but only half of the Navy cadets claimed

to have heard of these programs. Among 1973 USÄF ROTC enrollees, only

18% claimed to have heard of ROC and AVROC.

For each Service, the levels of claimed awareness for the Marine

Corps PLC program exceeded the levels of claimed awareness of the ROC and

AVROC programs. In general, there was no change in claimed program awareness

66

* CM co NO 00

co ^^ • • • • r-~- *« 00 00 a\ r^

ü ON N^ .H CO ON .H H r-l O &

5! 00 CM CO 00 <l- ^> CM ^N • • •

r~. B^S iO CN ON ^> ON —* rH en ON .-l r-l

PO

PL.

o M

M

H O M E h o

3

Q W H O W -1 W CO

O

c/3.

w 2

5

H

s-s o

K

N

CM LO

ON

ON

ON

oo ON ON

o o

B-S NO

CSl u-i

ON

00

o o

ON ON

CO

o LO

CO

ON

vO

LO CM

ON

r-l CM

e •r-t a)

O .. U-4

o O

5 to to

4J 01 c a 0) CO ON f-H ^

H S rH o cd !-. o

LW •H •U

<U to o •H C 4-1 0) cd n ■u

H | to

LM in •H a) O 5

67

from 1972 to 1973. (Claimed awareness of the PLC program increased from

1972 to 1973 for each Service, but this finding was statistically signi-

ficant only for USAF enrollees.)

Next, these levels of awareness were validated by asking respondents

who claimed awareness of a program (only) to identify the sponsoring

service(s) for the particular program. This analysis revealed the exist-

ence of considerable confusion with respect to program sponsorship. It

also demonstrated the need for caution in interpreting the previous data

on claimed awareness of the various programs by name. Results appear

in Table II-4.

In each survey, the majority who claimed to have heard of ROTC

correctly attributed sponsorship of the ROTC program to each of the services,

However, it is interesting to note that Army respondents were more likely

to attribute ROTC sponsorship to their own service (Army) than they were

to attribute sponsorship to the Navy or Air Force. This finding is noted

in each survey.

In each survey, awareness that the Marine Corps sponsors the PLC

program was high (over 82%). But it should be recalled that not all re-

spondents claimed to have heard of the PLC program (see Table II-3).

There was substantial confusion regarding the sponsorship of the

ROC and AVROC programs. For example, only 42% of the Army ROTC enrollees

in 1973 knew that the Navy sponsored ROC, and only 32% knew that the Navy

sponsored AVROC. (Equivalent or higher levels of sponsor awareness were

found among Army ROTC enrollees in 1972.) Among Air Force ROTC enrollees

in 1973, only 36% knew that the Navy sponsored the ROC program, but 69%

68

o q & PH

o Z § M h Z 00 M o i PM H

x: P4 o W n) O w M Pn u-i ta o O

CO

>j CO

3 CU

c H cu M u -J n) H 1 o e w •H H CO U .H w U ►J w Ü en 1 o 2 CO M cu s cu o rH CO rH z o o u Pu c CO w W u o H M O > Pi Pi W c/i • *

w o 3

pq CO CO u s

a <:

* * * * ON -vT r^. 00 vO UTl

IT) •—\ ■ • • ■ • • r^ s-« U1 CN co sr CN 00

O ON ^-^ oo 00 r-~ vO 00 NO H r-4 O Pi

9 C/> CO .H ro N0 n 1-^ O CM •~N • • • • • •

r^ &-e CTN m N£> rH o <r ON ^^ c-i 00 00 00 ON in

* * -d- ON ON m CN oo /—\ • • • • • •

S-? T-i o r--. r^ r~. ro Nw* m ON r-~ r^ r^ NO

6-«

00 CN

ON O- ON M ON ON u-i ON r~- 00 I-- NO

* -K * * u-i ON ON r-- NO t^

S~\ • • • • • • 6~? -H m ,-i en oo .H N^ >* ON ON in LT| m

i

3

m CN NO CN ^v . • • • • . 1^ B-« ON vo 00 -* ON -* ON ^-> -3" ON 00 NO NO CO

cu 4-1 o o •H

4J t Q) O VM u z p M 6-S B^S s-^ C -H o fc-S 6^; cu -u CO N^ N—^ «• i 1 1 u o a C o o u cu O u o H i 0) T3 a Q J § PM M en CÜ PH <

69

knew that the Navy sponsored AVROC. Among Navy ROTC enrollees in 1973,

only 51% knew that their service sponsored ROC program and only 64% knew

that their service sponsored the AVROC program. (It should be recalled

that only about 50% of the Navy ROTC enrollees claim to have heard of the

ROC or AVROC programs, as shown in Table II-3).

There were some changes from 1972 to 1973 in the extent of correct

sponsor identification of the various programs. From 1972 to 1973, Army

ROTC enrollees were less likely to identify the Navy as sponsoring the

ROC program, and less likely to cite the Navy and Air Force as sponsoring

ROTC programs. (However, there was an increase in citing the Army as

sponsoring ROTC.) The rates of correct sponsor identification for ROC

and PLC declined for Navy ROC enrollees from 1972 to 1973. The rates of

correct sponsor identification for each of the ROTC programs decreased for

USAF ROTC enrollees from 1972 to 1973. (It is not apparent why Air Force

ROTC enrollees were less likely to claim the Air Force sponsored ROTC in

1972 than they were in 1973.) USAF enrollees were more accurate in identi-

fying the Navy as the sponsor of the AVROC program in 1973 than they were

in 1972.

It seems reasonable to conclude that awareness of the PLC, ROC, and

AVROC programs is quite low among ROTC enrollees. If current ROTC enrollees

are to offer any assistance in the recruitment of young men for these off-

campus programs, there must be an attempt made to communicate the exist-

ence of these programs to them.

70

PERSONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

ROTC enrollees in each survey were asked to note individuals from whom

they had sought advice when they wanted information about military service.

A list was presented for their consideration.

Among Army ROTC enrollees, individuals most highly endorsed in 1972

and 1973 were: (1) father; (2) the military recruiter (at school); and

(3) close friends. Endorsement of these key categories of individuals

remained essentially unchanged from 1972 to 1973, although there was a

decline in endorsement of the father from 34% in 1972 to 28% in 1973.

Other decreases in mention occurred for less frequently cited categories,

i.e., school acquaintances, teachers, counselors, and ROTC instructors.

Among Navy ROTC enrollees, the respondent's father received by far

the highest endorsement (48% in 1972 and 54% in 1973). The increase was

significant. About 20% of the 1973 respondents endorsed the military

recruiter (at school or away from school), close friends, or counselors.

From 1972 to 1973, the increase in endorsement of the recruiter (away from

school) was statistically significant.

Among Air Force ROTC enrollees, individuals most highly endorsed

were: (1) military recruiter (at school); (2) father; and (3) close

friends. Endorsement of close friends and the military recruiter (at school)

increased significantly from 1972 to 1973 for USAF enrollees.

Results appear in Table II-5.

For each Service, the respondent's friends and father are seen as

key sources of information. The reader is also referred to Table III-6

71

< in

ON CO

* o o>

ro Csl ON o

Csl ON Cv| CO

CO

SO

CM

00

O

O CO CO

CM

Cvl 00 CO CM VO ON

M CslCOOOOOvOONONUO CO rH r-J

CO CM

o MD

d o ON

CO

w M

E w CO

H

-K * O CM ON CM 00 rH O CO 00 CO rH UO m r^

CO /-s. r^ B-« •<!- CO o CM CM 00 rH 00 o ON <-i <* CM rH

<_> ON N-^ u-i tH <-\ CN <-i <-i CM rH H rH n P4

£ <1 rH r^ rH LT) -3- CM r-- <r CM rH ON CM 00 «* 3 CM ^s

r^ BMJ CO CO O ON ON ON 00 ON 00 o- o m CM CM ON N^/ o- rH -H rH rH •-i r-i

I/} 1

M M

* * * * * w ON rH CM o ON M0 SO ON r~- rO CO CO ^ m KJ

CO ^N Si r^ e« r^ ro o o ON ON 00 rH ON ^-{ o 00 (SI CM c_> ON \—* CM <-t rH <-* rH CM r-i H H rH

&M!

MO ON MD <r MD CM NO o- fH MD rH M0 rH CO

CO CO

CM o rH

ON ON CM rH

m rH

ON CM

O rH

o CO rH

rH CM

0) u J-l o 3 CO .3 en o 0) 0)

UN /-^ o UH a CD iH rl 0 C o n M O ■ « M 0)

§ CD 0) O PM •H (1) u •M X! ^ O o

en •u •H •H CJ Ü u in •H a) 3 3 3 CO o o > > en •H H ^ U ,Q ■u r? •3

•tH 13 cd CJ rH o e T3 o < •u 3 3 0) O 0) o 3 en 3 (0 CO 0) cr en tti O Cd, u cfl 4J u 4J î

en rH

CD •H o

en O h"S <4H CD (1) rH

4-1 en

•H

u P2 Lfc ^ rH S-i CO CD X C ^

01 u VJ CU rH 0) QJ (0 cO CO oo CL M 9) CD a ^ 0) O 43 en ■U 4-1 4J & CU § M 4-1 jr. 43 u 0) U) O o c •H CO •rl CO rH ce) U U-I 0) — ■u u o 43 O 43 cO 3 rH w rH -~> rH Pu H o 43 c ed o u ■U ^ u fl) n Ü 2 0 O 4-1 O

Pn S PQ O c_> co H o o P< o Q

72

which presents data on the categories of individuals judged most influential

in the decision to join ROTC. In Table III-6 it is interesting to note

that the respondents' parents, friends, and relatives are also cited as

important influences in the decision to join ROTC.

73

III. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ENROLLMENT

Endorsement of a series of general and specific reasons for appli-

cation to college-based military officer training programs was studied

in 1973 and 1972. Comparisons were made of the extent of endorsement of

each reason between the two surveys, separately for men in Army, Navy,

and Air Force ROTC. The questions required respondents to state, in re-

trospect, the extent to which each reason influenced their decision to

apply for ROTC.

GENERAL REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING

Each respondent was asked to review the following general reasons

for applying for military officer training, and to indicate whether each

reason influenced his decision to apply.

GENERAL REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING

1. Military career opportunities

2. Travel, adventure, and new experiences

3. Serve my country

A. Opportunity for further academic education

5. Qualify for GI Bill benefits

6. Pay and allowances

7. Benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.

8. Avoid being drafted

9. Become more mature

10. Status and prestige of being an officer

11. Difficulty in finding a suitable civilian job

12. Fulfilling my military obligation at a time of my choice

13. Opportunity for special professional/technical training

74

i«T"-r

Table III-l presents the results for Army, Navy and Air Force ROTC

enrollees in 1972 and 1973.

Among Army cadets, the reason most frequently accorded strong

influence in both 1972 and 1973 was "travel, adventure, and new ex-

periences". This reason was endorsed as a strong influence by about 50%

of the sample in both 1972 and 1973. From 1972 to 1973, there was a

significant decrease in the attribution of strong influence to enrollment

to (1) service my country, and (2) fulfill my military obligation at a

time of my choice. There was a significant increase from 1972 to 1973 in

the endorsement of the following reasons: (1) the opportunity for further

academic education; (2) pay and allowances; and (3) benefits such as

medical care, BX/PX, etc.

Among Navy cadets, the reasons most frequently attributed strong

influence in 1973 were:

(1) Travel, adventure, and new experiences (62%);

(2) Opportunity for further academic education (49%);

(3) Military career opportunities (45%); and

(4) Opportunity for special professional or technical training (42%).

From 1972 to 1973, there was a significant decline in the endorsement of

enrollment to: (1) serve my country; (2) fulfill my military obligation

at the time of my choice; and (3) avoid being drafted. There was a signi-

ficant increase from 1972 to 1973 in the attribution of strong influence

to the following reasons: (1) military career opportunities; (2) the

opportunity for special professional or technical training; (3) the oppor-

tunity for further academic education; (4) pay and allowances; and (5)

benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.

75

tn

ON

r- •»

NO CM n

m

* CM

CM

* NO CJN

* NO oo

* en

NO

Ja oo 3 <N?

ON LO -* en 00 NO r^ CM o <r ON NO CM

o NO

u-1 CM NO en

CM rH

in

CM ON

CM NO NO

rH 00 i-M H

r-» CM

O in

■K * * ■K ■K ■K * * • O a* CM oo H ON CM 00 <r 00 en o CM •-N SN? in rH NO oo rH <r m 00 ON ON ON oo CM

<r NO en ^f rH CM CM rH H rH <f

< B-* ON ON

m ON en

«tf CM

00 00

CM NO

ON r-» o CM

CM NO

CM in en

•K ■X * * CTN rH m CM r^ CM ON NO en NO

s--* M cn 00 m rH 00 Q en CO O r-t

<f <■ en cn rH en en og CM CM

* CM

CM CM en

I M

3

6-5 CN O m

ON CM NO ON ON

r-. CM

r». en rH CM CM

ON CM

o CM

o CM

ON en en

3 00 0J O 3

rH •H •H CO •> X 4J c •

CO 4-> 0) cd cd ■a 4J <u •H r- M 4-1 Ü0 cn c

•rH 14H ed 3 •H •H r4 r-~ cd 4-1 s OJ CJ •H 3 rH 4-1 ON CJ •H OJ c 0) CO X rH -H c 3 <D rH XI O CD rH MH 3 r4 Xl ed cd CJ rH cd O -H 4J ■o 0) O 14H

rTc! cd o *J C

tJ Ci X rH •H o OO •H -H bo 0 CO 4-1 3 rH T3 3 ea x; CJ B CM -H o. u o •H <1) -3 0) •iH 4-1 CJ <U X r^ co CX * 3 •r( 05 CO B 0) 0) 00 •3 •H Du CJ ON 0 OJ MH 4-4 Cl) 4J )-i •rH 3 rH i^ CO 0) r-^ (^

r< r?

ed • Ü to UH 3 4J •H •H a 4J r-t M 3 r< O M

Cd ed cd 4-1 CO 14H s M -^ e <-"

CD ■u ■u o 3 - IH cd OJ X «H O rH o cd CO 01 C CD a MH XI Ü 5 x • ■3 e u 3 o |"° MH Cd u o s U <D 0) 3 0) 0 o CJ ex u •H •r-l a MH -H o <fl > o o >» u rH 3 4J 641 QJ 0) 0) >N O 4J to o T3 ci o 4-1 o o r-\ CO 01 n r< TD CJ >N C oo e 4J iH 01 CO ed ed 0) •r-l •H 14H cd •H O C iH 4-1 ed C -H •H CO CJ -H 0) tT •H >> 3 E CO - OJ a cd «H rH ■H •H 4J Ö CO C 4J

Pd •» >J i 3 0) >N id *-> X X) 14H 3 r^ rH 3 •H M O 0) CO ed •H > tt > o CJ rH J ex ed cd >N c « O CJ ed cd 14H CJ rH Cd ex ex MH CO 0) 3 M 0) ex 3 cd (1) > 01 4-1 ■H 3 ex •H cd 3 0) o

H 00 O o- 0-, 03 <c m 00 Q Pn O O 5

HC

76

Among Air Force cadets in 1973, the majority attributed strong

influence to enlisting for: (1) travel, adventure and new experiences;

(2) military career opportunities; and (3) the opportunity for special

professional or technical training. From 1972 to 1973, there was a

significant decrease in the endorsement of enrollment: (1) to avoid being

drafted; (2) to fulfill the military obligation at a time of one's choice;

and (3) because of the difficulty in finding a suitable civilian job.

There was a significant increase in the influence accorded the following

reasons: (1) the opportunity for further academic education; (2) the

opportunity for special professional or technical training; (3) pay and

allowances; and (4) benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.

It is noteworthy that, from 1972 to 1973, the following reasons

increased in endorsement for enrollees in all three ROTC programs:

(1) The opportunity for further academic education;

(2) Pay and allowances; and

(3) Benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.

In contrast, only one reason decreased in influence significantly from

1972 to 1973 for enrollees in each program. Enrollment to "fulfill my

military obligation at a time of my choice" was the only reason which showed

a decline in endorsement from 1972 to 1973 for enrollees in the Army, Navy,

and Air Force ROTC programs, i.e., all three ROTC programs.

For each program, two general reasons for enrollment appear particularly

important: (1) travel, adventure and new experiences and (2) military career

opportunities. In development of career motivation strategies, an attempt

to reward these predisposing motivations would appear effective. There are

also some reasons which are more important to enrollees in one program than

they are to enrollees in the other programs. For example, the opportunity

77

for further academic education is important to Navy ROTC enrollees, while

the opportunity for special professional or technical training is particularly

important to Air Force ROTC enrollees. (In the following analysis, this

finding for Air Force enrollees appears to translate into their interest

in flying.)

SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING

Each ROTC enrollee was asked to review the following specific reasons

for applying for college military officer training, and to indicate how

strongly each reason influenced his decision to apply for a college military

officer training program.

SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING

1. Which particular Service I am trained for (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps)

2. Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not

3. Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not get to fly) or not

4. How much money I get each month I'm in college (subsistence allowance)

5. If I get expense money for all 4 years of college

6. If I get expense money just for the last 2 years of college

7. If I have to go to summer camp

8. If my college tuition is paid (Scholarship program)

9. If I get to go to the college of my choice

10. If I get paid to go to college, regardless of my father's income

11. If I have to go into the military service

12. If I have to take courses in military subjects in college

13. If I have to drill (march) on campus

14. How many years I have to serve in the military after I graduate from college

15. How many years I have to serve in the Reserves after I complete active duty

78

Results for Army, Navy and Air Force ROTC enrollees in 1972 and 1973

appear in Table III-2.

Among Army cadets, the specific reasons most frequently accorded

influence in 1973 were: (1) If I get to go to the college of my choice

(36%); (2) If my college tuition is paid (33%); and (3) If I have to go

into the military service (30%). From 1972 to 1973, there was a significant

decrease in endorsement of the latter reason, and in concern over "which

particular service I am trained for". From 1972 to 1973, there were

significant increases in the influence accorded the following reasons:

(1) How much money I get each month I'm in college; (2) If I get expense

money for all 4 years of college; (3) If I get expense money just for the

last 2 years of college; (4) If I get paid to attend college, regardless

of my father's income; and (5) If I have to attend summer camp. The increase

in "economic" concerns from 1972 to 1973 is noteworthy.

Among Navy cadets, the majority in 1972 and 1973 endorsed three reasons:

(1) Which particular service I am trained for; (2) If my college tuition

is paid; and (3) If I get to attend the college of my choice. (The latter

increased in endorsement from 52% in 1972 to 58% in 1973). There were also

statistically significant increases from 1972 to 1973 in endorsement of

the following reasons:

(1) How much money I get each month I'm in college (subsistence allowance);

(2) If I get expense money for all 4 years of college;

(3) If I get expense money just for the last 2 years of college;

(4) If I get'paid to go to college, regardless of my father's income;

79

»s CN

*

o V40

CM

in CM r—

oö

* co

co O

■K

CM

*

in CM

O

00

o '-O

CO

o

en so

LO CJN o

CNl

LO co

CM X> co

as

so

CM

00 o nO

H

s s^s

sO

* rH r~.

* 00

-K * sO

* <t

* CO

-K 00 r- as rH r«

m 00 CM

O •-I rH

CO CM

CM rH

CM O 00 Ln

o CM

r-~ m as rH

u-i O CM

LO

ON

sO

r-l CM

CO in LO

co co

SO so CM

u-l

m O CM

sO

CO

CO Z

s-s

co

CM

so sD

* CM

•K

OS

-K

OS CO

* as O CM

* o -* r^

co CM

CO rH

CM CM

LO CM CO CO

MT CM

o CO

o rH

sO as CM CM

CM I

CQ

W

rH 00 UO in 00 CM r^ r^ Os LO m (*» O-N o l*> r>v° CO o o\ co CM CO o> rH LO as •» rH CO g *w- CO r-l -H rH rH CM CO rH co rH CO

CO CM

W rJ

I a. CD CO

H 4-) •H CJ CO 0) 0 , 0) CO u cd rH CO CD co 42 <D 42 4-1 C fr <D u B a) a) O >, 00 CO cd 3 4J rH U& •rl a CD ^ x: 42 E CD 4-1 a. rH ca o •H cj M 4-1 CJ U

r? •H i C2 O d

M u LM •H ^r CO LH rH •H o tH CD 4J LH LW J3 ^ r4 >w^ o " cd •H CJ >

<D o UH 4-1 1) rH O a CD 4-1 E (D E a) -H • a c O a O rH LH i T3 CD 00 •H C > o > *J 4-1 a •H c 0 c CO cd •H 00 CD rH C o U H M CJ CO C

>-i o " E rt 4-1 a CO CD rH ■H •H <u LH a) <j r^ CO

M | •H TJ 5 u CO a. rH rH E •-^ CO CO CJN CJ

4-1 c J2 o o 3 u i-t O co 42 CD a) rH •H

a) CO 3 o rH LM •r-l CD CO o CJ CD CD CJ 0 4J O 4J LH

u «V •H o cfl rH g •H CJ 42 co U 4J CO 4J 111 O •H

•H a) > M 4-1 0) CO >s >> £ O " 4J rl cd 3 1-1 4-1 c 7) > o CO 00 O CO > S CM •H

o 4J o 0) 00 4-1 •H o Ü •H CD CD rH 7-i >, CTJ In 1-1 <D (U M 4-1 CD CD a) 3 4-1 o •H -* <-! •H M r-l M M rH

M co 3 e 3 /-^\ CO CO CO <-! o 4-1 4-1 O cd ^ H E rH

CD rH o 4-1 o p^ >^ •H 3 c: r-l 00 O CO 00 4-1 O T3 CO u CO U o CO

-d 3 CJ 0' o rH a) co CD CD 0 CD 00 -a - O U CD U CD u CJ

•H Ü •> tu a a) LH CJ JD p- a. O o 00 ■H u O o O CO 4-1 Cd 4-1 LH •rl

CO •H r 43 43 o 3 X, X 4J CD o CO a) 4J 4-1 c 4-1 CD LH CD LH 4J

3 u M o B CO CD 0) CD LH rH 4-1 0.42 •H r^ CO >. <0 CD CO

o M m rH o M 4-1 ^^ 00 o CD rH 4J CD (D CD CJ •H

u CO z jn 4-1 CD 4-1 > o /^N 4-1 4J cd ?> > CO > >s >. >i CO C 4-1

0. H ^~s l-i 4-1 o a) CD rH CD CO cd CJ E CD CD LH cd CO 4J cd a H a a) CD CO

o * CD >s 01 a) 3 00 00 rH &0 rl J3 cd 00 00 42 42 CJ 42 cd CO CO > U 4-1

■H 42 >, 42 rH J3 00 0 <1J O cd ►, u >s CD E 4-1 S u CD co LH o E 4-1 LH 4-1 .H l-l O M CD rH e 00 y-i M B l-H M •r-l \-t •H at LH

■H •H a) 0) 4J 3 rH r^ o 43 3 rH 3 co LH CO

o g < r; 0 S 0 O 0 LM LH LH LH LH M LH LH LH HH LH 3 LH O •H o <y •H CO

0) ^ ^5 4J c K CJ M o M CM M HJ OH rH M O rH rH co rH M E K Pi Q 3

c/3 ■K

80

(5) Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not; and

(6) If I have to go to summer camp.

The increased concern about money and school expenses from 1972 to 1973

is noticeable in the first four reasons.

Among Air Force cadets, the majority endorsed two specific considera-

tions in 1973:

(1) Which particular service I am trained for; and .

(2) Whether I become an aviation officer or not.

The latter reason was attributed strong influence by 49% in 1972 and

60% in 1973. The consideration of flying appears to be highly important

to Air Force ROTC enrollees. There was also a significant increase from

1972 to 1973 in the endorsement of a large number of additional specific

reasons. Increases in endorsement were found for the following reasons:

(1) How much money I get each month I'm in college (subsistence allowance);

(2) If I get expense money for all 4 years of college;

(3) If I get expense money just for the last 2 years of college;

(4) If my college tuition is paid (Scholarship Program);

(5) If I get paid to go to college, regardless of my father's income;

(6) Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not;

(7) Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not get to fly) or not; and

(8) If I have to take courses in military subjects in college.

From 1972 to 1973, there was a significant increase in both the economic

reasons and in concern over flying, i.e., "Whether I become an aviation

officer (get to fly)" and "Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not

get to fly)". Endorsement of these reasons demonstrates the concern over

flying opportunities indigenous to Air Force ROTC enrollees.

81

In summary, there are certain specific reasons which reportedly

exerted increasingly strong influence in the decision to enroll in ROTC

from 1972 to 1973. Included were reasons such as the duration of financial

support (whether the respondent received expense money for 4 years, or

just for the last 2 years), the amount of the subsistence allowance, and

whether the subsidy was contingent upon his father's income. Although

these reasons do not receive majority endorsement, they reportedly exert

strong influence in the decisions of approximately 15% to 25% of the

respondents. And, as noted, they appear to be increasing in importance

over time.

In the development of career motivation strategies, it might be useful

to emphasize the value of economic incentives provided by the subsidies

offered in ROTC. Reliance on predisposing motives such as branch-of-service

consideration would also appear pffective in selected cases, e.g., for

Navy and Air Force enrollees. The appeal of flying to Air Force enrollees

is particularly impressive. This latter consideration may deserve emphasis

in attempts to counter indecision with respect to long-range career

motivations as initially noted for these men (see Table 1-15).

CONDITIONS OF ROTC AFFILIATION

Each ROTC enrollee was also asked three questions with respect to

conditions of ROTC affiliation:

(1) Would you have joined ROTC without getting a scholarship? (This question was posed to scholarship enrollees only);

(2) Would you have joined ROTC without getting subsistence allowance?

(3) Would you have joined ROTC, under this condition ... if you dropped out during the first two years, you would have to repay all government funds spent toward your education?

Results are presented separately for each question.

82

The majority of Army and Air Force ROTC enrollees in the Scholarship

programs claim that they would have joined ROTC without getting a scholar-

ship. This finding was noted in both 1972 and 1973. But for Navy

scholarship enrollees, only 40% said they would have joined ROTC without

receiving a scholarship. (This was a significant decrease from a 50%

affirmative response in 1972). Results appear in Table III-3.

In each survey, the majority of ROTC enrollees reported that they would

have joined ROTC, even if they did not receive a subsistence allowance.

However, there was a significant decrease in the rate of affirmative

response for Army and Air Force respondents from 1972 to 1973. Results


Finally, about 50% of Navy and Air Force enrollees claimed that they

would have joined ROTC even if repayment of funds were required of drop-

outs. However, only 36% of Army enrollees answered the question affirma-

tively. This represented a significant decrease from a 51% affirmative

response in 1972 for the Army ROTC enrollees. Results appear in Table III-5.

In general, the results from this section may connote an increased

concern with the immediate financial benefits of ROTC affiliation. This

conclusion is particularly reflected in the attitudes of Army ROTC

enrollees in Tables III-4 and III-5. The Navy scholarship enrollee may

represent an extreme case of this argument (see Table III-3).

PERSONS INFLUENTIAL IN ROTC AFFILIATION

Each ROTC enrollee was also asked: Which one of the following persons

MOST influenced your decision to enter ROTC? Response options listed for

the respondent included: a Service recruiter, parents/friend/relative, a

school counselor, someone else (undifferentiated), and no one. Results


83

ro r»

u ON H H o 3

fe < CO :=> CN

r^ ON <-4

N 00

CN

00

B-?

H ^D • • CN cn 00 .H

cn

6^8

o> ON

O

o o

PL,

£ ij !* o tH

g c o CO

CO <: d)

a) H rH b .H o O

B U 0

M W S

a O •H H J3 O cn g H

at Q H w o S3 H ■s O co <-> w .. > W

SO 9 « Q ►J 5 o s

B-S

&•?

6-S

S^

o

m

0>

* ON

00

00

* CN

vO

CM

r*.

m

m

in

6-5 o o o

o

o o

B-? O

O o

6-5 O

o o

m

cn a o

•H 4-1

ft I o ä a) cn 4-1

a - o CO a a, CU o o cn a)

OS

>-" •7-, a

4-1 CO C r-~ CO C7> a H •H

U-l O •H 4J c

M CN •H r^ cn a\ H >,

.-H e --H o CD H CJ

cw •H 4-1

CU CO u ■r-4

C 4J 11 « w 4-1 CU cn

U-l CM cn •H CO P S

84

\l J-1Ai!"

S-?

in 00

ON

■ 5* O o o

w u

5! e-s

oo

CM

O

<N o o o

^s m

* CN ON

ON ON

SB CN ON

00

oo

o ON

ON

ON ON I

N—' OS

H 8

CN

ON ^s

vO

ON

ON CM

u-1

00

it! o o o

CN

ON S-« o

00

o itf o o o

§ o •H u §

§ o a

in O

£

c o Q

CO C r~~ cfl ON O .-4, •H

14-4

o •H 4-1 C

M CN •H r^ to ON .-I >i

i-H £ r-4 o « s-i U

y-i •H 4-1

a) W o •H c 4-> o; « V-i 4-1 ^-^ m <r o H rH <-t o oi

Si 8-S CO <r o vO O Ö CM /*"S • • • •

t^ s-s o CO vO o ON ^^ u-i <r o .H <-\

S3

^S

.-1 CM co iH * • • • CO ^D m O -d- <r o

6-;

en oo O

O O

u~i

He * .>« O m m o

/—N • • • • S-« vO <r CT> o v-^ CO m o

6-8

o

 Ö

00 CM •H r^ CO ON i-H >,

.H e i-t 5 CO u CJ

LM •H ■U

CU CO o •H a 4-1 a) a) VJ v> 0) co

IW cw CO •H cj o 5

86

M

00

ON

CM CO

co m

LO <r ON • • rH

00

B-S ON CO <r rH O • • • • • -* vO CN CO o -4f CM o

rH

o H co M CJ w Q

W

i-l S3

s-s 00

* * ft* o 00 <r ON 00

• • • • • CO m 00 0^ cn m rH cn

s-s

m o

r* LTl in r- 1-1 • • • ■ •

^ 00 CM O- o in rH o

ft-5 I

M

w

H S3 o

>o

o H

H co o a o

w O-i

S*

»*

00

00

C0*

.. H en 0) c 4J o •H

•H 4-> 2 P. Ü o *J Bi 01 en (U C o o •H °1 rn 5 (1) 0) « t/)

■K * ft-S -* CM <r 00 m <Ti • • • • • • CO <r <r OV cn CT> rH <r r-t cn

ON

CO

c c3

X, «J

u u 0) 0) 0) £ J3 «

3 S-i o

O Ö

•H (U O CD

0) -H Pa C > O M 4* •H

cn 4-1 4-1 ca e rH C1J a) U ei cd

PM

m oo i?-S

o o

u o

rH 11 cn a 3 o

c_>

o o u

CO

QJ cn

rH w 0) c o 0)

CO

QJ a o o

2S

4-1 CO a r*. CO cn CJ rH •H

14H O «H 4-1 C

00 CNI •H r^ CO ON rH F^

rH p. rH o CO U a

14-1 •H 4-1

0) cn CJ •H a 4-1 OJ CO rJ 4-1 0) cn

U-I 14-1 cn •H cfl Q S

87

In each survey, the modal category attributed influence was "parents,

friend, or relatives". In 1973, the category was endorsed by 53% of

Navy enrollees, 43% of Air Force enrollees, and 44% of Army enrollees

(The latter is a significant decrease for Army enrollees from 51%

endorsement in 1972).

In 1973, the service recruiter was endorsed as most influential by

9% of Army enrollees, 10% of Air Force enrollees, and 4% of Navy enrollees.

(The latter was a significant decrease from 7% endorsement among Navy

enrollees in 1972).

The only additional type of person for whom endorsement as influential

changed significantly from 1972 to 1973 was the category "someone else".

Endorsement of this category of individuals increased from 1972 to 1973

among enrollees in each of the ROTC programs. -Unfortunately, the meaning

of this category is not known. But the consistency of this finding across

programs may merit the performance of additional research to enhance

recruiting for ROTC.

The results from Table III-6 (and Table II-5) argue for emphasis

on "influences" such as parents, in the recruitment of young men for

ROTC. Parents appear particularly influential, both in the initial

provision of information about military service and in the decision-

making process in which young men choose to affiliate with an ROTC

program.

* The reader is also referred to Table II-5 where the father (and close friends to a lesser degree) were cited as sources of information about military service.

88

IV. THE QUALITY OF ROTC INSTRUCTION AND COURSEWORK

Respondents in each survey were asked a series of questions to

assess the overall quality of ROTC programs in comparison to their

regular college work. These questions concerned respondent perceptions

of instructor quality and coursework quality, and reports of the typical

grades received by the respondent in ROTC and in college courses in

general.

ATTITUDES TOWARD ROTC INSTRUCTORS

The majority of ROTC enrollees viewed ROTC instructors either "about

as good" or "better" than their regular college instructors. This finding

was true for Army, Navy and Air Force enrollees, in both 1972 and 1973.

Results appear in Table IV-1. In each survey, slightly more than half

viewed the quality of their ROTC instructors as about the same as the

quality of other faculty members. And in each survey, about 30% - 40%

thought that their ROTC instructors were "better" than other faculty members.

The only significant differences between 1972 and 1973 occurred

among Army enrollees where the opinion of the ROTC instructor declined

slightly, and among Air Force enrollees where the 1973 respondent was

more likely to claim that his ROTC instructor was "better" than other

faculty members and less likely to claim that he was equivalent to them.

For each program, less than 10% of the enrollees thought that ROTC

instructors were "worse" than other faculty members. As noted above,

there was a significant increase from 1972 to 1973 in this negative

89

co «»■> 00 o> <f o

u H o

rH en

CM LO

vO CM o o H

c*!

fe < co

CN| <"-\ • O LO 00 6* OS

CT. rH

6~« rH co

r^. rH OS ON

w

fcn o

PL, o

o H U

H CO 2;

u H

§ fa O

W

o

rH Q

o CJ

w to

pq

VO co 1^^ . r- 6v? O 00

CJ OM'*-' co LO H IH| O m

g < -tf r~- s IN ^

r^ 6-? r-> rH OS ^^ CM ^D rH

9>

ON

CM

OS

6^5

S^S

O O

co n ^ . f» 8^8 ^D o> p-' en LO

* 9\ o>

00 LO CM ^N a . r-~ s^s o> rH o\ ^ co LO

^D

6^8

O O

^

~£

§ u

■H u-i •H B oo

■H CO

a) u

en •H •u CD 4J U)

en

o •u

CM

£

CO VJ o •u T) CJ O 3 O

Inst

r A

re:

u

o

c3 §

•H c

■H CD ■u <D CL, CJ ■U 3 en o H 4J o VJ

g <y A O o PQ <3 •z E3

g o Lj

o G V rJ

90

opinion among Army ROTC enrollees, but the percentage changed from only

6.1% in 1972 to 9.9% in 1973, still a low level. Also, the magnitude

of this change is small enough that it need not be of great concern

unless the trend were to continue over time. Even with the increase,

the proportion of Army ROTC enrollees in 1973 who felt that their ROTC

instructors were "worse" than other faculty members was about the same as

the proportions of Navy and Air Force enrollees who provided this negative

assessment of the quality of their ROTC instructors in each survey.

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE QUALITY OF ROTC COURSEWORK

ROTC enrollees were more equivocal about the quality of their

coursework than they were about their instructors.

Over half of the respondents believed the quality of ROTC coursework

to be "about as good" or "better" than the quality of their regular college

coursework. Results appear in Table IV-2. However, the proportion who

stated that the quality of ROTC coursework was superior to other college

courses was not as high as the proportion who felt the quality of ROTC

instructors was superior to the quality of other college faculty (see

Table IV-1).

The difference in assessment of ROTC instructors and ROTC coursework

is primarily accounted for by a response alternative available for the

evaluation of coursework: "Depends on the course". This category accounted

for from 12% to 16% of the total responses in the evaluation of ROTC

coursework (see Table IV-2). By selecting this alternative, enrollees

indicated that the quality of their regular college coursework varied

91

u H

Si to 3J

M

,>?

*

ON

* O

o o

ft^ o o <r vO O • • • • • >* 00. vO iH o .H m .H iH o

en w en

£ 5 en o o w S u w w ,-J

w 1 Ü -1 o i 3>

o Pi

o J w Pn o o C_J 5 Z q Pi pi CJ «: w 5 M Z Vu 1 o

Pi M o o p< P-. O £ o

H • • M w

53 Q w

to <

or 1 8

PJ

S-«

s-«

6^

6-5

-* r^

00 vO * o 00 • • • •

rH CM ON

ON

en 00

to o r>S

O O

CO

u-l

ON o P^ 6-? ON

■ • • ■

o u-i

ON rH

CJN ON

ON

ON 00

o 00

ON ON

■a .a CO o CU e M u •• O 3 3 Q) 9 O O U CO CJ u <; M •o

a) j-j cu 3 0) o JJ 3 en cu x: H 4J o M a. -u 8 pa S o

3 s

-c u

s •H

T) • fl> 4-1 -a 3 D cfl

rH o CJ •H c 4-1

•H ■H 3

CO OJJ a) •H tn tn c o ►, ex r-l CO .-H cu cfl H a

•H z • ■M

« UP CO •H

V4 o 4-1 ofi ÖÜ a o CU 4-1 u ■u CO

PM n) O to

c nj •H

"cu S

4-1 CO m O u r- z 3 ON

O o

rH

TJ o c CU 4-1 CO JS

•u CM ~ r». rs 3 ON o CJ rH c

M CO S3 T3 Ü

•u 3 U m CU CM B a n CU QJ a (U CJ

*■ 3 cu

• • 0) w U-I H 4-1 o •H Z O

CNI

M

92

and hence, that a simple comparison of course quality was precluded.

Another part of the difference in the proportion of ROTC enrollees

who evaluated instructors resulted from their negative assessment of

ROTC coursework compared with regular work. In 1973, from 12% to 19%

of all enrollees responded that ROTC courses were "worse" than other

college courses (Table IV-2). But 10% or less considered the ROTC

instructor to be inferior to other faculty members (Table IV-1). The

fact that enrollees are more critical of ROTC coursework than they are

of ROTC instructors seems to indicate a greater dissatisfaction with

the content of the ROTC coursework than with the quality of instruction.

There were a number of changes in evaluation of the quality of ROTC

coursework from 1972 to 1973. Although most of the changes were small, some

of the changes were statistically significant. Army enrollees were

significantly more likely to feel that ROTC coursework was "worse" than

other college courses in 1973 (19%) than they were in 1972 (15%), and

less likely to claim it was "better". Air Force enrollees were more

likely to feel that ROTC coursework was "better" in 1973 (20%) than in

1972 (14%), and less likely to feel that it was "worse". This pattern

of changes for Army and Air Force is the same as previously noted for

ROTC instructors in Table IV-1. These consistent results in two pre-

sumably different subject areas could be an indication of increasing

satisfaction among USAF enrollees but a growing dissatisfaction among

Army enrollees. However, until a more definite trend has been established,

this interpretation should be regarded with caution.

93

COMPARISON OF GRADES IN ROTC WITH COLLEGE GRADES IN GENERAL

One method of evaluating the quality of ROTC programs is to compare

the grades earned in ROTC with the grades earned in regular college

courses by the same ROTC enrollees. It may be argued that the demonstration

of a significantly higher distribution of grades in ROTC than grades

in general college courses indicates that ROTC courses are easier than

regular college courses.

Table IV-3 shows higher grades are reported earned in ROTC courses

than in college courses in general. In each ROTC program, a substantially

larger proportion of enrollees reported receipt of all A's, or A's and

B's in their ROTC courses, than they earned in their regular college

courses. This would seem to indicate that ROTC courses are easier than

other college courses. This conclusion was further supported by an

examination of the relationship of ROTC grades and regular college grades.

This analysis showed that, for 1973, most enrollees got better grades in

their ROTC coursework than they did in their regular coursework. (See

Appendix E for details.)

Alternative hypotheses could also be entertained. For example, data in the previous sections which indicate that approximately one-third of all ROTC enrollees feel that their ROTC instructors are "better" than regular college instructors, hence, there may be more opportunity to achieve. There is also the possibility that ROTC enrollees like their ROTC coursework more than their regular coursework and, therefore, study harder for ROTC courses than for the average of their other courses.

** As noted, the grades are self-reported by ROTC enrollees, with the responses limited to the general categories shown in Table IV-3. The use of regular Grade Point Average (GPA) taken from official transcripts would be an im- proved approach. This approach was not used for practical reasons in this survey, but is eminently feasible to perform this more definitive analysis using school grade data from transcripts.

94

H ON

en ON LT1

O co

d

ON O <t CN| u-1 ^^ r>? u-i CM NO LTl O ^^ co m

* rH CM rH r^ • • ■ 1 uO O <t O 1 CO u-i <-\ 1

00 co

CO

O ON iH

r^ o O

NO NO <r CM CM co s-°* r^ S-S NO .-1 NO in o o ON ^^ CO lO

g rH

Pi on H

g g 5 < ON VO o u-l o •z CM ^~N • • • • 1 u r^ *>? <r ON rH -* 1

c/> ON *w> CM v£> 1 w w rH O en

►J Ö ►J O o o c_>

CJ -K * 55 H r-~ rH o o CM MS CO *»s • • • • •

r^ 9-S m NO CM NO o en u ON ^y CM NO w a H rH

9 M §

2 Q °% fc w 3B o 2 CM 00 U~l CM CM

a <j CM s-\ r-~ hi vO LO CM LO O

w ON N-^ CO LO > .-1 <

co m in CM CM

00 NO CM

CM

o CM

00 CO CM

8 o CO •H 1 U-I > •H

6, M

r^. O CM |-~. CM W • • • • ■H ►J

r^ CM ON o o CO 5 CO <r .-1 >i H

rH iH

CO CJ

•H U

CM I/O rH 00 rH

CO NO ON o o i->

CO <r rH to ■u cc

03

CO

ON

0) CO hT « 0) <:

rH £ rH O iH o 3 - r » c CO CO CO o •H ^*^ — — — rH * pa c_> Q 0)

CO CO z r z na 0) »

T3 <« •0 -o T3 •o CO

M a a a a O ►,

H ~ 5 j r 0) 4J en en en en M 0) - — - m

ca I < CQ CJ o M Z ~ ; ti) > <

CO U

^! C3 CM

H r~ r> rH ON (kj 3 - - - »

iH

fl CO CO CO o Id •H ■**„ - •> l-t o

x pa c; Q V >-l CO CO ~ E oa (1) «.

X) <! T) T3 T3 T> l 0) »H J r r: ; r-l

(1) ■M CO to CO CO 01 rtf CO •. ». _ UH

« O < pa u Q U-I

(1) 2 r

Q

>

95

There are few differences in reported grade distributions between

1972 and 1973. Among Army ROTC enrollees, there is a significant decline

in the reported percentage receiving "A's" and "B's" and a corresponding

increase in the percentage receiving "B's" and "C's" in their regular

college coursework. In contrast, there was a significant increase from

1972 to 1973 in the percentage of Army ROTC enrollees reporting the

receipt of "Mostly A's or All A's" in their ROTC coursework.

The only other significant change from 1972 to 1973 occurred among

Air Force ROTC enrollees. A significantly higher percentage reported

the receipt of "A's" and "B's" in ROTC in 1973 (50%) than reported these

grades in 1972 (43%). This change seems to have occurred because fewer

1973 enrollees received either "Mostly A's, All A's" or "B's" and "C's",

thus offsetting the increase reported in "A's" and "B's".

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS IN ROTC COURSEWORK

ROTC enrollees were also asked to evaluate some suggested improve-

ments in ROTC programs. Three major areas were evaluated:

(1) The receipt of college credit for ROTC coursework;

(2) Abolition of drills and marching; and

(3) Moving ROTC activities off-campus.

Results for each subject are summarized in Table IV-4.

In each survey, receipt of regular college credit for ROTC courses

was a uniformly highly valued suggestion. Over 90% of the enrollees in

both 1972 and 1973 favored this policy. For most of them, however, this

96

* * .-1 CM ON

co •-s • • • r- ^s NO rO vO

o ON •*-* ON H .H H rH O Pi

3 vs vO 00 ON P CM y^s • • •

r^ 6^ <r t*» ON ON ^~* ON H i-H

d) to 0 O P. CO OJ

OJ >

en o

>

CO

g

c OJ O Si QJ

PH

u H

B-?

6^?

W C/3

pa s-s

ON

CM

ON

ON

ON

o CM

NO

o

ON

CM O CM

CO m <r CM ^s • • • r-~ S-S en CM CM ON ON rH H

c to o

C 00

•H 0)

CO u

4-1 CO

cn cO

ON

o 4J

CM

ON

I >

w hJ

3

•H

a) M u

> •H Ü

O

I cn M 3 O u u H o Pi

CO 60 rH C i-l i-l •H J3 I-l O a si

to •H T3

O CO

3

14-1 14-1 o

cn cu

•H U 4-1 H -H 9 > Prf «H

cn D P-

14-1

9) U C OJ (-1

(DO« > <: u

97

is not a new suggestion. The majority of ROTC enrollees already receive

course credit. The rates of reported receipt of course credit in the

1973 survey were Army (87%), Navy (90%), and Air Force (89%).

The abolition of drills and marching was endorsed by less than 20%

of enrollees. Eliminating drills and marching was more frequently

endorsed by Navy ROTC enrollees than it was by Army or Air Force enrollees.

In 1972, 21% of the Navy enrollees favored the abolition of these

activities. The rate was 17% in 1973. The only significant change from

1972 to 1973 occurred among Air Force enrollees. In this case, fewer

enrollees favored the abolition of drills and marching in 1973 (13%)

than did so in 1972 (18%).

The suggestion that ROTC activities be moved off-campus was endorsed

by 20% (or less) of enrollees. However, the level of endorsement of this

idea increased significantly for both Army and Air Force enrollees between

1972 and 1973. It is possible that residual post-Vietnam pressures for

getting the uniform off-campus remain important considerations for Army

or Air Force ROTC cadets. (However, the level of endorsement of the idea

of moving ROTC units off-campus remained low (10%) among Navy enrollees).

Nonetheless, neither the suggestion to abolish drills nor to move ROTC

units off-campus received much endorsement by current program enrollees.

Preliminary analyses suggest that neither approach is particularly

important in the retention of current ROTC enrollees.

98

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ayer, N.W., and Yankelovich, D. An Investigation of ROTC Among College and High School Students. Washington, D.C. : N.W. Ayer & Son, Inc., 1972.

Fisher, A.H., Jr., and Harford, Margi A. Enrollment and Career Potential for College-Based Military Officer Training Programs: Results of a Survey Conducted in May 1972. HumRRO CR-D7-73-34, November 1972 (also designated as OASD (M&RA) Manpower Research Report No. MA 72-3).

Fisher, A.H. , Jr., Harford, Margi R.", and DiSario, Martha R. Enrollment Potential for College-Based Military Officer Training Programs: A Comparison of Results of Surveys Conducted in May 1972 and May 1973. HumRRO CR-D7-73-92, October 1973 (in preparation).

Fisher, A.H., Jr., and Rigg, Leslie S. Career Potential of Enrollees in PLC, ROC, and AVROC: A Comparison of Surveys Conducted in May 1972 and May 1973. HumRRO CR-D7-73-108, November 1973 (in preparation).

Griffin, G.R. A Comparison of Attitudes of Black and White Cadets in AFROTC. AF/DPXY-MR-71-011. Personnel Research and Analysis Division, U.S. Air Force, 1972.

Hunter, Robert W. Social Sciences, The Armed Forces, and Society (Interview with Dr. Morris Janowitz). Air Force Magazine. (July 1973), p. 5F-9F.

Johnston, J. and Bachman, J. Youth in Transition. Volume V: Young Men and Military Service. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Institute for Social Research, 1972.

99

TT

Appendix A

DETAILED SAMPLE SIZE INFORMATION

FOR ROTC PROGRAM ENROLLEES

Scholarship Program

BASIC ADVANCED

1972 1973 1972 1973

Non-Scholarship Program

BASIC ADVANCED

1972 1973 1972 1973

ARMY ROTC 155 155 213 161 243 255 285 258

NAVY ROTC 204 243 184 202 132 102 87 66

USAF ROTC 190 179 197 230 198 229 181 219

101

Appendix B

COMPARABILITY OF 1972 AND 1973 SAMPLES

OF ROTC ENROLLEES

There were no differences between the 1972 and 1973 samples in

racial composition or employment status (Table B-l). There were

occasional differences based on family income, age, and the presence of

Junior ROTC at the respondent's high school (Table B-l); and on parental

educational attainment (Table B-2). But these differences were scattered,

i.e., they occurred for enrollees in one Service, but not in the others.

For example, 1973 Army ROTC enrollees had higher income families (Table

B-l), but less highly educated fathers (Table B-2). The 1973 USAF ROTC

enrollee was younger, and more likely to have been exposed to Junior

ROTC in high school (Table B-l). Navy ROTC enrollees showed no differ-

ences on any of these characteristics. The only consistent difference

across programs from 1972 to 1973 was the finding that the 1973 samples

were more likely to have come from non-metropolitan areas (small towns

or rural areas). However, even these differences were of minor magni-

tude, e.g., 6% - 10% (Table B-l).

Comparisons of the 1972 and 1973 samples were also made on:

(1) college major subject, (2) ultimate educational expectations, (3) life

goals, and (4) expectation of achieving life goals in the military service.

The 1973 samples showed a lower percentage of engineering/architecture

majors (Table B-3). But educational expectations did not change from 1972

to 1973 (Table B-4). Life goals were generally constant (Table B-4),

although 1973 USAF ROTC enrollees had more favorable attitudes toward the

attainment of life goals in military service (as opposed to civilian life)

than did the USAF ROTC enrollees in 1972 (Table B-5).

102

« « * * n 00 0\01!OON 03 o> o 00 r> vo Ifl Ov OvN .-1 -* U">

r~% ■ • • • ■ B • • • • • • • • • M CM r- sj m n i-s oo «* 00 NO vO ro o\ HN-»m <f U"l O ^^ ON r) N N CM co in CM -* CM 1/1 iH rH rH rH 00

ON

m-*Nst-» »BNinflON H N N N

00 -tf ON

ve MA co in

vO Cl H

U1 CM CM co »* CM

004000 • • • • m o 00 m -* CM rH rH

o ON 00

r^ o 00

* * ON rH CM NO O O CM 00 r^ in rH ON ON ON CM 00 rH rH r^

c/j fin ■ • • * • • • • • • • • • ■ • • « • • 1 PJ r» fr« NO CO r~. NO 00 0 00 0 m CO ON CO NO m rH m r^ CM f^ 1 w -5 ON K^ ON rH CM -tf CM r- CM -* CM m CM rH rH 00 1 ►J ^H ■-M rJ O g Pi DÄ as W £ U CO <£ 00 CSJ NO f~ O CM NO 00 rH rH ON O CM -tf CM «* O -* m CM H o> q OJ

p-*; CM /■> • • • • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • r- 6^; NO co ON 0 m r-. t^ rH ON ON O CM r-s CO rH r- 00 CM r^ 0

OS rH ON ^^ ON CM CM CO CM NO CO m rH in CM rH rH 00 rH rH ss rH

d 1 CO

u H § * * * W CO fH ON rH NO -* CM ON ON 00 -3- ON 00 00 m r^ CM >* r^ r» rH CM hJ rH 00 <n r*N ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • CQ a 0 r^ 6-? en NO CO CO <■ |-~ O CM 00 00 »3- 00 NO ON CM <f CO NO CO O < S£ 0 ON s^* ON rH CM CM CM rH CO in CM CO CO <tNHH rH 00 H

H rH

u § § <u X <o S-(

U cd s BQ OH CM Is« 00 *» 0 O r-» ^r l"s r^ rH CO rH ON ON ON CO <t CM ON

U <^ CM r^ • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • n r^ 6-8 <f m CM VT 00 CM CM m •» ON csi r^ 0 ON ON NO CO <r -* O

£ ON 'w' ON rH CM CM CM rH CO m CO CO CO -* rH rH rH rH CO

8 CO

Q OJ N

md

19

icant.

•H oo - >4H

4^

■H L972

ig

ni

O U to

8 N-^

§ § OJ 00 u

rH O

0J ^j

B « a) d Tj 4J u d

•H -H 5} d ai CJ O

§ o\ U H 0 3 T3 § XI 0 ON ON 0) 0 HH U O rH O 0 ON ON > -U 3 rfl O O iH >N O s 00

rO ti a O ON « O - Tj r4 P. ftrH M O "ON d 4-> OJ O OOO u u > X

O CO rH VJ 0 »HW OQ

CO >N x> u (H a. 0 0 r4 3 0

to « OJ ►1 4J OJ OJ O J2 4J 4J O •n •H OJ . 4-1 rH 00 </> 1 . "*«. to B E rH 00 9J Ü r4 CO 0) CO 0) Ä d 0 ti •H •H O 1 O O *o •H •H a. •H SSu M C M M in us

OJ w .d § 0 0 0 OJ 4-1 u 4-1 1 OJ OJ cd cd cd cO 0 d OJ 5 a u 0 0 0 00 a w ■z 0) i-i S OJ OJ OJ OJ •H 4-1 £ » •u 1 tu OJ O •> *> 3 OJ rH 4J ÖOrH 1 5>N >N >> >N 2 2 •H d •a ~<r 0 MH IN

rH h 4-1 IH h <t C 0 E U) d

£ 0 rH d 00 rH CM a) 3 CO 0 O «BO ON O »H CM a cd OJ 0 0 as co p </></>- -o> Pd O fa Pi S3 rltnZ rH CM CM CM 0) M >- A a

co 3 rH 0) to 00 0 0 i P. ft «J CU O cd s 1 I £ 3 u

fa PM *

103

u H 19

73

(%) OO u-i • uo

vO CM

O

CM CM

• CM CO

o Ctf

5i CO

E3 CM ^N ^H r^ O ON 00

ON w r-l

u-> oo 00 CM

CM

CM CO

* r» ON 00 CM r-^ • • • a # CO 00 CM CO O

<t C-J CM

UO CM CO ON r^ • • • • CM ON CM d O-

<f CM CM

OO w w ►J

§ w u H

§ fa o CO u (-1

H co

a w H O

2>

0) CU

o c H

00 o r<

p-,

0) U)

PQ

CO 1^^ 00 • r^ CM LO

ONI^-' co -<f rH

CN 00*

u-1

q «:

I eg /—N r^ u-| uo N£> CM

o> v— CO vd rH

CM OO ON

-cr

CM

uo NO ON

CO CO

00 CM

O CO

B-S • •

I"- rH

U0

00 ON CM rH

*

CO CO

t so CN -* 00 • • • • si m vO <f o

CO CM CO

CM

CO

co

ON •* ON -* rH

u-i

CM CM

CM ^-\ o uo -0- CO ON

C7N 6-« r~ 00 oö

CM 00 rH CO

O uo O r^ r-~ -* 00

CM CM

U CU X 4-> cd

U ft. cd

•H >N 3 X 00 CU Xt tH Oi CU o

■u o <I-I V .e O r-l u

a CO 01 E

Xf O cu CO CJ •a u cd O rH u

O o 4J O CO -G cd ej -1 00

c 0

iH *J CO o

rH 3 O VJ X) o O W

J3 rH CJ a) x) O CO 00 01 O cu u

rC ^ X -*-N i-H C o en 00 0) co rH cd

CO u tH 00 J-i o > co X CU a) O X) X > XI rH >, X) •H ai O CU t-i

rn co j2 U CO J3 CU i 4) rH

en ■H CU

1 rH

W 43 •H 4->

S w C e ^^ a o O •H o •H co ft< CO fe

kl CU -a rH 4J 0

a* o jr, cd rH o

d ^ o co 3 rQ o 00 0) X)

aci cu f-H

J2 r-V CJ CO 60 a)

r"\ CO

O CO r4 •H 00 VJ ■U o cd rs cu CO

<4H CU O rH ■s J2 CU

00 >N XI rH CU

a CO •H CU o CU B xi 5 CU

33 co Xi CO

o CO 1 « o XI CU rH •H 01 rH u

O rH cd u s ^ o C

•iH N-^

o *J o

o co fc. CO

c3-g rJ CO

a o

•rl U tO u 3

u X) o w CU XI 00 CU a) CJ

<-{ d r-> CO 0 > u X)

< X) cu (-1 X (U

c o

CO 1^ • ON -u rH s XI o

s •H UH •H

CM c r^ M ON •H rH CO

c >> CU r-i CU r-A s CO

■u O CU TH

XI 4-1 CO

CD •H ON

3 co D

r-- ON

ON

CM CO CM

CM CM

co in

o CM

en

in eg

CM

o d CO

d

to W w hJ

§

H s ft, o H u w

g

o

w o

a o o

to cu cu

o

w

V4 oo o

0) CO s

CQ

* * * --I r^ r^ o 00 ON O vO <f NO I <n —t 00 .-1 CM r»

CM m 00 00 .-1

00 CM

.H <N rH rH

en rH

I en CM o o 1 o rH

00 -d- <t ON CM o CNI <f m -3- <r o 00 rH U0 -~T 00 rH 1 CM -—\ ~~ ft-? ■H ■-I un ON O CM I-I o 00 ON o CM CM CM O O o rH 1 ON s—/ rH CO rH ^H

CO

PQ

* * * Ed rJ

v£> O m r~. «• CM r-~ <r r^ co «* I/O i-H 1 | 1 CO O 1 9 CO ^s 1 1 • • r- ft-? CO \o M0 LO 00 MD r-~ o ND 00 o r- CM 1 1 1 O rH 1 H ON ^ CM ^H

CO ON <t ON ON co ON 00 m r^ CM r-- NO CO <r i rH rH 1 1

M -* CM r- r-{ CO in CO ^ m O o NO CM CM o i o r-^ 1

1 ^—^ CM rH CM

CO r-- ON t-H •

4-> • • XI a cu C CO oo cd U a) CU •H

.-H u CM «W rH 3 r^ -H o 4-1 ON C o

u CO o CU

rH 60 •H

c 4J CU 4-1 C CO •H CO

0) Ü c

•H CO

CO CU

CO cu

01 0) >s

CD n CU CJ CU CJ o CO 5 rH 0) 0 •H u CJ c Ö cu CO ß rH H tu CO CJ < c: cu cu CJ Ü o) cd <: **^. O CO CU •H T4 c co •H XI u

01 iH 00 •H CJ o CU CO 4-> 3 ^H 4-1 M CO -H C O CO CO •H CJ H o •a 0) 4J CJ 3 58 CO •H CO U C •H <: co c cu rt CU CO

cu 4-1 Ü CO U Er Â CO p^ o 4J CJ o M 01 U -H •ri rH rH T4 CO <U rH (0 ÖD •rl CO rH T4 o CO £ C 4-1 43 3 CJ 60 CU CU n] CO CJ rH O 4J e CO 6 w ^ CO 01 CO 3 O

1— o c c CJ 4-1 •H CO •-{ CO > O cu 3 4J Xl o e x T) IM VJ 4f u •H 3 c cfl CU 32 X- o X T) 5 •H CJ o 4J C o CM 01 O < pq m Cd J s PH co H W J w m o 3 as •H M

Q cd

105

Q w

IN /-N

CTN *—*

O CO

ON

CO 00

* 00 \D ON in CM r^ CM co ON ON ON to

t-H -a co u-l

—i

CM rH o r»

o CM

CM CM • • iH CO o

CO si- CO

CM

w H m • • • O iH r->

H

w w

S3

9

ft

en a) CU

w o M

PM c o w 00 E z cd o i-l

00 O U

0) Cn

(d ca

ON

CM

/—\ U")

CO

00 NO

NO

O

CO /-s ON m I*» ^S ON v^ CO m t-H CO ô

CO M0

* CM

rH rH

o>

O

"0

CM

CO

CO rH

ON

CO •H

co

o rH

CO CM

rH

CM

rH

00

ON

CO co

CM CM CM

NO O • • U0 ON o

CO ON • •

*

ON

rH

NO

O CM

d rH

m M3 rH

• O CM

CM rH

NO

■H

ON

rH

ON in <T ON o m NO <t O CO -H NO

rH m rH

rH rH m rH o rH oo

l PQ

W

9

w

O

w U-l

o

0) > 0) rJ

■o OJ

■u

o cu

w

<D a) r-J 00 CU Q

01 00 0)

o

OJ 00 0)

o o T3 C o >N 0J

PQ

§

o o cn

h CL)

4-1

■u

ja

o

00 c

•H

O 3

!-J >> O cu 3 C

o 00 s a •H IH 00 o a CU 4J

CO

u 00 c

•H o a

CO a)

CJ

3 E

CO d

oo a

60

5 5

a o cu p.

1-1 ai

J3

oo 9

0J

pa

o

cd <D

00 a

•H > m

•S -° S O ■n

O -o cd

o ö

0) o >H 4J

•2 CO 4-1

a oo c«

Ü * (1)

cq

OJ

5 §

a g

co 4-i cu <d 4J

C 4-1 Ti

o o

oo c

a)

c 00 o o 1)

cd

o

w

01 (-1 3 4-1 a >

-a

t ■ a co M C - O c a o en a cu = u V r

106

rH & CJ cn

8 c cc)

co 0 4-1 2: rH 3 cn •a CU c prf CO

W H O 2

CO t^ . o\ u HS T3 CJ C «H Cd «4-1

•H CN C r^ oo ON -H •H CO

e >» CU iH CU iH U cd 4J O CU TH

XI 4-1 CO

cn -H cu 4-) o cd C 4J cu co u 0) cu

<4-l Cd

* * * * * * ON NO NO in UO rH NO o m *o

r*s 6-? r~- 00 r-H h> CM CM NO rH m m ^^ en r- CM vO <r ON CM -9 r^ 00

6^

-* NO CM 00 m O CM <r r-^ ON

CO CM vD

rH ON m CO

-I ON

en CM

en en

o in oo

w u g Pi w 00

B >l M 3 en

0) t> H 0) fn 1—1 rH pi yA rH o l-l o pH s )-l PM a o W w

s i r<

M 00 1» o o CO u

£ i PM

£ CJ 0)

co CO e en

cd w H PQ CO rJ CO < Pi

o

S3 w H

1 O H

6-S

s-s

6^

■X

«* -<r CM vO 00 o rH CM ON rH ■ • • • • ■ • • • •

en NO CM r>» <r en ON CM CM <r CM NO rH O- en ON .-1 en r^ oo

CM r» st r- rH CM r~- ON CM NO

CM NO

r^ NO NO en

rH ON

m rH

CM en

en CM 00

*

o CM

00 CM

>» 4-1 9)

•H O O cn

r4 0) •u 4-1

a)

M O

4H

00 c •H

U O 3

oo m

oo m

«1

■a 00 e

•H o Q

m NO

m eo * -tf

r~ sj-

CM

00 s •H

ON cn

00 c

cd 0) rJ

oo en

M u >> H o 01 01 K a B rH

o n3 a 60 B o a A 0)

■H UH CJ p. oo o 3 a e M 

PQ

00

«I > a)

o o

00 c

■rH cn

-r4 cd pi

NO

NO

en NO

cn 3 4J <d 4-1 CO

c o

a 00 o o

CM

O oo

0 a) 1 0) 4J ■H O X w a) 9

■u C CD > <

en i-» • ON -M rH C

cd 73 O C "H (d MH

•H <N e r^ öo 0\ iH rH 0)

C rS 0) t-H 0) rH > cd

cu -H

0) (0 -H 0) -u cj cd C J-> <0 CO h 0) a)

<4H VJ UH cd

in i

w rJ

9

Appendix C

1973 ROTC SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

GILBERT YOUTH RESEARCH

5 15 MADISON AVENUE

NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022

JOB #700524-C

MARCH, 1973

Office of Management and Budget Approval No: 022R-0304 Expires: June, 1974

COLLEGE ROTC SURVEY

Hello, I'm (INTERVIEWER'S NAME) of Gilbert Youth Research in New York. We are interested in finding out how young people feel about college and the Military Service. The information you give me will be used on an anonymous basis only.

SECTION "A"

First of all . . .

la. What year of college are you in?

Freshman 7-1

Sophomore 2

EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS | QT]

Junior

Senior

Other (SPECIFY)

lb. Are you in ROTC, ROC, AVROC, PLC or any other college military officer training program?

2 | END INTERVIEW, RE-USE QUESTIONNAIRE! Yes 8-1 No

lc. (INTERVIEWER; ASK ONLY IF "SENIOR" IS CHECKED IN Q. 1A ABOVE; OTHERWISE, 60 DIRECTLY TO Q. ID)

Do you plan to graduate this Spring? Yes 9-1 No 2

Id. Do you plan to continue your schooling next Fall? Yes 10-1 Undecided

2a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #1) Would you look at this card and tell me what is the highest level of education you expect to achieve?

a. College Graduate (Bachelor's Degree) 11-1

b. Beyond College (Graduate or Professional Degree)

c. Neither of these (Plan to Quit/ Leave School)

2b. What are your main reasons for wanting to achieve this level of education?

12-

13-

3. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #2) What is your major college subject area?

a. Agriculture - Forestry

b. Arts - Classics

c. Biological Sciences

d. Business .

e. Engineering - Architecture

f. Law ....

g. Medical Sciences .

14-1

2

3

h. Military Sciences

i. Physical Sciences

j. Social Sciences

k. Theology

1. Education .

m. Other (SPECIFY)

What are .your average grades in college?

a. Mostly A's/All A's 16-1

b. A's and B's . . 2

c. B's and C's . . 3

C's and D's

D's and below

108

15-

(17-30)

SECTION "B" I LIFE GOALS I CAREER GOALS~

5a. What do you think will be important in your lit«. . .1 will read some statements describing a person's aim in life and you tell me how important each statement is for you personally. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #3) Here is a rating scale from 1 to 5. Something which is extremely important to you, you would rate 5; something which is not at all important you would rate 1. You can rate any statement between 1 and 5 depending upon how importart you feel this statement is to you personally.

INTERVIEWER: READ THE STATEMENT THAT HAS A RED X FIRST. WORK DOWN THE LIST OF STATEMENTS AND GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING WHEN NECESSARY, FOR EXAMPLE: IF STATE- MENT C HAS A RED X", READ THIS STATEMENT FIRST, CIRCLE THE RATING GIVEN, THEN CONTINUE IN THE SAME MANNER FOR STATEMENTS D , E , F , G , H , I , J A AND B IN THAT ORDER,

(CIRCLE ONE NUMBER ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT)

a. Working for a better society

b. Doing challenging work

c. Making a lot of money

d. Learning as much as I can

e. Helping other people

f. Having a secure, steady job

g. Being able to do what I want to in a job

h. Raising my own social level

i. Recognition/Status

j. Adventure/Excitement

5 (31- )

5 (32- )

5 (33- 1

5 (34- )

5 (35- )

5 (36- )

5 (37- )

5 (3B- )

5 (39- )

5 (40- )

ell me the three most 5b. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 14) Please look at this card of statements and important statements which describe your aim in life, the first most important, the second most important, and the third most important. Just give me the letter designation that appears at the side of the statement. (RECORD LETTERS BELOW)

The first most important statement is letter:

The second most important statement is letter:

The third most important statement is letter:

41-

42-

43-

5c- (REFER TO CARD 14 AGAIN) Where do you think you would be better off for achieving these life or career goals. . .in the military service or in civilian life?

Let's start with "Working for a better society". . .(RECORD BELOW UNDER APPROPRIATE COLUMN)

INTERVIEWER: REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR EACH OF THE STATEMENTS LISTED, RECORDING —EACH ANSWER AS YOU ASK THE QUESTION, ON THE CORRECT LINE IN THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN.

Military Service Civilian Life

a. Working for a better society

b. Doing challenging work

c. Making a lot of money

d. Learning as much as I can

e. Helping other people

f. Having a secure, steady job

g. Being able to do what I want to in a job

h. Raising my own social level

i. Recognition/Status

j. Adventure/Excitement

44-1 2

45-1 2

46-1 2

47-1 2

48-1 2

49-1 2

50-1 2

51-1 2

52-1 2

53-1 2

109

(HAND RESPONDENT CARD IS) Please look at this card and tell me for each of the reasons listed, how strongly it would influence or has influenced your decision to apply for military officer training., strong influence, some influence, or no influence at all (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH REASON)

REASONS;

a. Military career opportunities • . . .

b. Travel, adventure, and new experiences

c. Serve my country

d. Opportunity for further academic education

e. Qualify for G.I. Bill benefits. .

f. Pay and allowances

g. Benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.

h. Avoid being drafted

i. Become more mature

j. Status and prestige of being an officer

k. Difficulty in finding a suitable civilian job .

1. Fulfilling my military obligation at a time of my choice.

m. Opportunity for special professional/ technical training

Strong Influence

Some Influence

No Influence

54-1 2 3

55-1 2

2

3

56-1 3

57-1 2 3

58-1 2 3

59-1 2 3

60-1 2 3

61-1 2

2

3

62-1 3

63-1 2 3

64-1 2 3

65-1 2 3

66-1 2 3

SECTION "C MILITARY INFORMATION

(67-80)

,<7-)

7a. We are interested in finding out how much you know about military life, particulary about military officers. First, let's talk about the pay that officers receive.

(HAND RESPONDENT CARD 16) When was the last time that the starting pay for officers changed? (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER)

a. October 1945

b. June 1957

c. April 1963

8-1 d. February 1968 4

e. November 1971 r)

f. January 1972 6

g. January, 1973

Don't Know

7b. About how much money in total does a beginning officer earn in a month? That's basic pay plus (CHECK ONE ANSWER ONLY) allowances for an unmarried commissioned officer

a. Less than $100 a month 9-l'

b. $100 - $200 a month . 2.

c. $201

d

$400 a month

$401 - $600 a month

e. $ 601 - $ 800 a month

(ASK f. $ 801 - $1,000 a month

> Q. 7c) g- $1,001 - $1,250 a month

Don't Know ...

S\ , (ASK 0. 7c)

_y. (GO TO Q.7d)

7c. Is this money MORE. LESS, or ABOUT THE SAME as a college graduate would earn in his first job?

a. More 10-1 c. About the same 3

b. Less 2 Don't Know . y

110

7d. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #7) About how auch fc—lc pay does a beginning officer aarn in a month? Juat basic pay, not allowances for an unmarried, ccssaissioned officar.

a. $100 a month

b. $250 a month

c. $400 a month

d. $550 a month

-Uz* a. $700 a month

f. $850 a month

g. $1,000 a month

Don't Know

7e. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #8) Which of these military officar training programs hava you heard of? (CHECK "• " EACH PROGRAM "HEARD OP* UNDER Q. 7* BELOW)

7f. (FOR EACH PROGRAM "HEARD OP", ASK:) What branches of the military service is (PROGRAM) sponsored by? (CHECK " •" SERVICE UNDER Q. 7f BELOW, ON THE CORRECT LINE AND IN THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN)

Prog»"

a. ROC

b. PLC

c. ROTC

d. AVROC

a. TLC

S+JM. a- 7f SERVICE:

Heard of Army

15-1

lv-1

17-1

Navy

2

Air Porce

3

3

,3

3

3

Marine Corps

4

4

4

4

4

Coast Guarda

5

i s

5

s

All of (CHECK "•")

12-1

These

6

2

3

2

2

2

2

6

ft

4 6

5 6

Now, let's talk about ROTC ....

8a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 19) Which of these college coats can ROTC pay for?

a College Tuition and Books, but no expense money .

b. Civilian Clothing .

c. Other College Expenses

.18^1

2

d. Both College Tuition (incl. Books) and other College Expenses 4_

All of the Above

Don't Know .

8b. ROTC offers both scholarship and non-scholarship programs. Which of these have you ever heard of?

Scholarship . 19-1 Both . . . 3

Non-Scholarship 2 Heard of neither 4

8c. Would you say that scholarships and subsistence allowances are one and the same thing, or are they different?

20-1 (GO TO Q. 9a) Different 2 (ASK Q. 8d)

8d. In what way do they differ? 21-

22-

9a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 110) After he graduates from college, how long does a man with an ROTC scholarship have to serve as an officer in each service? In answering the question, do not include the additional time he will have to spend if he takes aviation training after commissioning.

Let's start with "Army ROTC" (REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR NAVY -JOTC AND FOR AIR PORCE ROTC.)

2 Years

a. Army ROTC 23-1

b. Navy ROTC 24-1

c. Air Force ROTC 25-1

d. There is no difference between Services 25-y

3 Years 4 Year« Don't Know

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

111

9b. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 111) Men in some ROTC programs receive money for room and board and expenses. It'» called subsistence allowance. Please look at the card and tell me about how much subsistence allowance do they get a month7

a. $ 25 a month

b. $ 50 a month

c. $100 a month

d. $150 a month

26-1 e. $200 a month

f. $250 a month

g. $300 a month

Don't Know . (27-)

9c. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 16 AGAIN) When waa the last time ROTC subsistence allowance changed?

a. October 1945 28-1 d. February 1968 4) g. January 1973

b. June 1957 2 e. November 1971 5

c. April 1963 3 f. January 1972 6 Don't Know

9d. How did you find out about ROTC? Was it from your . . . (READ LIST) (RECORD BELOW)

a. Father 29-1 g. Teachers

b. Mother 2 h. Counselors

c. Brothers 3 i. Military recruiter at school_

d. Other relatives . . . 4 j. Military recruiter away from school

e. Close friends .... 5 k. Other (SPECIFY)

f. School acquaintances . 6

9e. Have you seen or heard any advertising for college ROTC? If so, for which college ROTC program have you seen or heard it?

Army .

Navy .

Air Force

30-1 All of them

Have not seen or heard any advertising .

SECTION T" ROTC INFORMATION

10. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD # 12) Which of these programs are you in?

G a. ROTC

b. ROC

c. AVROC

d. PLC

31-1 I CONTINUE WITH Q. 11, ON THE NEXT PAGE

GO DIRECTLY TO Q. 23, PAGE 7

(32-47)

112

INTERVIEWER: ASK ROTC STUDENTS ONLY

11. Are you in the Basic ROTC Program or the Advanced ROTC Program?

basic ROTC _48=1 (ASK Q. 12a)

. Advanced ROTC Don't Know

-| GO TO Q. 13 | ■

12a. (IF "BASIC ROTC", ASK:) Do you intend to continue into Advanced ROTC?

Yes 49-1 (GO TO Q. 13)

No Don't Know •I ASK 0. 15S~

12b. (IF "HO" or "DON'T KNOW" IN Q. 12a ABOVE, ASK:) Why do you say that?

_Sfl=

51-

[TSK ALL ROTC STUDENTS |

13. Which branch of Service are you in?

Army 52-1 Navy Air

2 Force Marine Coast

3 Corps 4 Guard

14. What is the length of your program in terms of the number of years of receiving money to be an officer? Does it pay for 2 years, 3 years, 4 years or none of these?

2 years 53-1 3 years 4 years

| ASK Q. 15a |

15a. Do you have an ROTC scholarship? Yes 54-1 No

None 4 (GO TO Q. 15d)

2(GO TO Q. 15d)

15b. Would you have joined ROTC without getting a scholarship?

Yes 55-1 No 2 Don't Know

15c. Would you stay in ROTC without a scholarship? .Yes 56-1 No

£ Don't Know

15d. Do you hope to get a scholarship? Yes 57-1

I GO TO Q. 16a j

o 2

16a. Do you receive ROTC subsistence allowance? Yes 58-1 .No 2 Not Applicable 3

(GO TO Q. 17)

16b. Would you have joined ROTC without getting subsistence allowance?


17. Would you have joined ROTC, under this condition ... if you dropped out during the first two years, you would have to repay all Government funds spent toward your education?

Yes 60-1 No Don' t Know

18. Would you stay in ROTC if there were no subsistence allowances?


(61- )

19. Would you stay in ROTC if you didn't get credit for the military courses?

Yes 63-1 No 2 Don't Know 3 Don't get credit now 4

113

20. What are your average grades in ROTC?

a. Mostly A's/All A's 64-1 e. B's and C's

b. A's and B's . . 2 d. C« and D's 4 e. D's and below

21. Now tell me in your own words, how you happened to join ROTC. 65-

66-

67-

22. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #15) Which one of the following persons MOST influenced your decision to enter ROTC?

a. Service recruiter ... 68-1 d. School counselor 4

b. Someone in the Service other e. Someone else . 5 than a recruiter . . . 2

c. Parents, friend or relative 3 No one . . 6

INTERVIEWER: ASK E"FRY0NE

23. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #16) If there had been no draft and you had no military obligation, do you think you would have enrolled in a military officer training program?

a. Definitely yes 69-1 c. Probably no 3

b. Probably yes 2 d. Definitely no 4 e. 1 don't know

24. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #17) Do you plan to stay in the Service at the end of your initial obligated period of service as a commissioned officer? Please look at this card and tell me what your plans are.

a. No, I plan to leave when I complete my obligation 70-1

b. I am undecided 2

c. Yes, I plan to stay in for a while .... 3

d. Yes, I plan to make the Service my career . . fi

25a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #18) If you had no military obligation, and were permitted to leave your military officer training program, would you do so?

a. Yes, I would leave the Program as soon as possible 71-1

b. No, I would stay in the Program .... 2

c. I don't know ......... 3

25b. Why do you say that? 72-

26. Is ROTC compulsory at your school? yes 7.1 NO 2 Don't Know 3

27. Do you get course credit toward graduation for taking ROTC in college?

Yes 8^.1 No 2 Don' t Know 3

28a. How do ROTC instructors compare with other faculty members at your school? Would you say your ROTC instructors are BETTER, WORSE, or ABOUT AS GOOD as the other members of the faculty?

Better 9^1 Worse 2 About as good 3 No opinion

2 8b. How could ROTC improve the instruction? 10-

114

29. Should ROTC abolish drills and marching? Yes

30. Should ROTC activities be held off-campus? Yes

13-1 No

14-1 No

Don't Know 3

Don't Know 3

31a. How does ROTC course work compare with other courses at your school? Would you say the content of your ROTC courses is BETTER, WORSE, or ABOUT AS GOOD as the other courses?

a. ROTC courses are better

b. ROTC courses are worse

15-1

2

c. About as good .

d. Depends on the course

31b. How could KOTC improve the content of the course work? 16-

17-

18-

31c. Should you get credit for ROTC courses? Yes 19-1 Don't Know (No Opinion)

32. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #19) Please look at this card and tell me for each of the items listed, how strongly it would influence or has influenced your decision to apply for a college military officer training program . . a strong influence, some influence, or no influence at all. (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH ITEM)

Strong Some No Influence Influence Influence

Which particular Service I am trained for (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) ......

Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not

Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not get to fly) or not ........

d. How much money I get each month I'm in college (subsistence allowance) .....

e. If I get expense money for all 4 years of college

f. If I get expense money just for the last 2 years of college ........

g. If I have to go to summer camp ....

h. If my college tuition is paid (Scholarship Program)

i. If I get to go to the college of my choice .

j. If I get paid to go to college, regardless of my father's income .......

k. If I have to go into the military service

1. If I have to take courses in military subjects in college ........

m. If I have to drill (march) on campus

n. How many years I have to serve in the military after I graduate from college .....

o. How many years I have to serve in the Reserves after I complete Active Duty ....

20-1

21-1

22-1

23-1

25-1

26-1

27-1

28-1

29-1

30-1

31-1

32-1

33-1

34-1

33. What is the best feature in the ROTC Program? 35-

37-

34. What is the biggest problem with the ROTC Program? 38-

39-

40-

115

J5a. Whom did you generally seek advice from when you wanted information about Military Service? Was it your . . . (READ LIST BELOW; (RECORD BELOW UNDER Q. 35a)

35b. Whom did you generally seek advice from when you wanted information about college? Was it your (READ LIST BELOW) (RECORD BELOW UNDER Q. 3 5b)

36.

Q: 35a Military

a. Father ..... 41 -1

b. Mother ..... 2

c. Brothers .... 3

d. Other relatives 4

e. Close friends 5

f. School acquaintances 6

g. Teachers .... 7

h. Counselors .... 8

i. Military recruiter at school 9

:■ Military recruiter away from school 0

k. Other (SPECIFY) 42

45-1 OT : Program at your high school? Yes No

Q. 35b College

43-1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

44-

Don't Know

[ GO TO 0. Al I-

36 a What did you think of the Junior ROTC Program in your high school?

36b. Were you ever enrolled in a Junior ROTC Program? Yes 48-1 No

36c. Which branch of the Armed Service would you say is best overall?

Army 49-1 Air Force 3 Coast Guard .

Navy 2 Marine Corps 4 All the same, no difference

46-

(50-80)

MISCELLANEOUS - CLASSIFICATION

Now, some final questions about yourself and your family 6-1

(1-49)

Al. AGE: How old are you as of your last birthday? (INTERVIEWER: IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION)

16 years

17 years

50-1

2

18 years

19 years

20 years

21 years 22 years & older

A2. What is your date of birth? (INTERVIEWER: IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION)

Month _ 51- Day (52-53) Year (54-55)

INTERVIEWER

IF RESPOaJTENT IS NOT OLD ES0UGH (UNDER 18) TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT (SELECTIVE SERVICE), 60 DIRECTLY TO 0. Bl. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE WITH 0. A3

A3. Have you registered with the Selective Service? Ye» 56-1 (ASK 0. A4)

»o 2 (GO TO Q. Bl)

116

A4. (IF "YES" IN Q. A3, ASK:) What is your draft classification now? (If your draft board has classi- fied you, then you have received the card, "SELECTIVE SERVICE NOTICE OF CLASSIFICATION". On that card, your classification appears as a Roman numeral and a letter, for example, I-A, II-S, I-H, etc.)

I-A

I-A-O

I-C

I-D

1-0

57-1

DRAFT CLASSIFICATION

I- II

-A

-C

-D

6

7

8

9

II-S

III-A

IV-A

0

X

Y

-1

IV-F 3

II IV-G 4

II IV-W

V-A

5

II IV-B 58 6

IV-D 2 I-H 7

MARITAL STATUS: Are you currently married or single?

Married 59-1 (GO TO Q. C) single

B2. (IF "SINGLE", ASK:) How likely is it that you will get married in the next 12 months? Would you say that it is very unlikely, there is a small chance, a good chance, or that you definitely will get married?

Very unlikely

Small chance

60-1 Good chance .

Definitely will

C. RESPONDENT'S OCCUPATION: Do you have a job at the present time? If so, is it a part-time or a full-time job?

Not employed 61-1 Part-time Full-time

Dl. DISPOSABLE INCOME: Approximately how much income would you say you yourself received in the past 12 months - that is, counting all sources such as a job, allowance, gifts, etc? Please try to give your best estimate.

Under $300 . 62-1

$300 - $399 . . 2

$400 - $499 . . 3

$500 - $799 . 4

$800 - $999 . . 5

$1,000 - $1,499

$1,500 - $1,999

$2,000 - $2,999

$3,000 - $3,999

$4,000 or more

Don * t Know

D2. About what percentage of this income was pretty much yours to spend as you wanted? In other words, what percentage was left for you to save or spend as you pleased after you paid for all absolute necessities? Please try to give your best estimate.

Under 10% 63-1

10 - 19% 2

20 - 29% 3

30 - 39% 4

40-49% 5 80 - 89% 9

50-59% 6 90 - 100% 0

60-69% 7

70-79% 8 Don't Know y

E. TOTAL FAMILY INCOME: (H«ND RESPONDENT CARD #20) Would you please look at this card and tell me in which group your total family annual income falls . . . Please add up the income (including social security, interest, dividends, or any other significant income) of all the workers in your household. Please give me the letter designation only of the income group. (RECORD BELOW)

a. $2,999 or under

b. $3,000 - $4,999

e. $5,000 - $7,999

d. $8,000 - $10,999

e. $11,000 - $13,999

64-1 f. $14,000 - $16,999

g. $17,000 - $19,999

h. $20,000 or over

Refused

Don't Know

117

'■ (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #21) What was the last grade of regular school your parents attended and completed? please answer for each parent separately.

Father Mother

a. Grade School 65-1 66-1

b. Some High School (1-3 years) . . . 2 2

c. Finished High School 3 3

d. Some College (1-3 years) 4 4

e. Finished College or other advanced education (technical or business school) . . . 5 5

G. Do you live at home with your parents? Yes 67-1 No 2

I TO BE FILLED IN BY INTERVIEWER FROM OBSERVATION ONLY I

H. RACE OF RESPONDENT: White 68-1 Black 2 Other 3

TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD:

Large Metropolitan Central City 70-1

Outside Central City - Urban 2

Outside Central City - Rural 3

Small Metropolitan Central City 4

Outside Central City - Urban 5

Outside Central City - Rural 6

Non-Metropolitan Urban 7

Rural - Farm 8

Rural - Non-Farm .... 9

|~BE SURE TO FILL IN CITY, COUNTY. AND STATE I

Respondent's Name:

Present Address:

City: 71-72 County: 71-74 State:

Interviewer's Name:

Date: Day of Week:

Time Interview Started: Time Interview Ended:

7W6

SUPERVISOR TO FILL IN THIS SECTION

Interviewer verified on (DATE):

Question #'s: checked.

118

Appendix D

APPROXIMATE TESTS OF STATISTICAL

SIGNIFICANCE

Approximate Sampling Tolerances for Differences

Between Two Survey Percentages at or Near These Levels

10% 20% 30% 40%

Applicable Size of Samples or or or or

Group Being Compared 90% 80% 70% 60%

ARMY ROTC 900 - 800 3% 4% 4% 5%

USAF ROTC 850 - 750 3% 4% 5% 5%

NAVY ROTC 600 - 600 3% 5% 5% 6%

50%

5%

5%

6%

(95 in 100 Confidence Level)

This table provides an approximate test of the statistical signi-

ficance of the difference between any two percentages at the .05 level

of significance. An illustration of the use of the table is as follows:

For two sample sizes of approximately 600 and

percentages ranging around 10%, the difference in rates

between two samples would have to exceed 3% in order to

achieve statistical significance at the .05 level of

significance.

Note that two independent samples are assumed.

119

Appendix E

RELATIONSHIP OF REGULAR

COLLEGE GRADES AND ROTC GRADES:

1973 Program Enrollees

X) C a (C 6

.-H n 0) - aa Q

s-s c o

o

o o

ß a] a)

CO Q S^

-3- . CN r- • • • VO <-i rH iH m in

o

o o

CO 0) a)

o u c w u H §

W CO < pq

W

o w O w

d o o

c a) co

co u

pq

s-e

en '<; o

s^

CO

00 CN

O 00

CO

m

oo

H •o fa a /~^ 00 o CN M cfl CO s-s • • O •■ ^^ <r m o PM CO PQ m en r-l

w <

CO o

o o

if-; O

^-1 1 • w

o o w H hJ

5 EH

6-5 O

O o

o

CO »- <: rH

^ § Q ^* in en CO tH rf 00 — — — V Pu ■- PQ c_> a PQ o <:

T3 TD "O -T) C_J ^ C a d d H iH CO ca cd cfl c ) •M o2 CO CO en CO CO

O - — — — X < PQ u O

120

•o c 9 cd o

.H en CD — PQ O

B-« O O

6-8 O

O O

T3 Ö 6^ cd co ^N v£> o> LTi -* 00 o

•■ 6-? 03 Q -w' a^

CM 1»» a\ VO o

o CJ iH

CO CU 0)

o u C

W u H

1 w I H

M o PM

CO W IS Q

co

PQ

CD

O

i-3 O

c cd co

co cj

PQ

T3 c cd co

CO PQ

B^

N

en

<

+J i-i co <! o X

6-8

00 CM 00 CM ■ • • •

o <^ v£> m rH -* co

CM 00

CO MD

CM

O

o o

00 LO ô in m B~? o

CO CO

CO o o

CM I

w

a 59

o

o o

to

< -H rH <3 --■^

CO CO w < g O en en en H a iH » - — fl)

r-l PQ u Q PQ O <:

TJ XI T3 >d u ^ C c C a H iH ed 3 er) et) O 4J Pi CO en en en en

o » w m •. X < PQ c_) Q

o H

121

T3

9 § CO <D

- PQ Q

►* ON CM

o

o o

T3 a o r«. m CO CO /—\ • • • » 6-S r^ m r*s CO Q ^-^ rH LT) CN

U

CN

o O

•a C C^ c^ rH

en CO 0) /—N • • ■ u •• S^ u-> <J" 00 CD co u v—' CM LO rH

rH «. rH w n O o U C i W

> u <! •a H c ^D 00 o § g CO CO

*5 0> -d- vO M co m ^W o- <t- > /—N • rH rJ rH rH N u-l -3-

o ■U rH ^-^ r>. CNI o CO <, • • o

W 2 C/3 <ti to

6-5 O

O o

o>

O

O O

tn

< rH

00 rH g w <: o ""-•» to tn CO rH -<j CD — — <1J pd ^ PQ u Q CQ o <

TJ TJ -a TJ u rN C C c C r-l H rfl CO cfl CO O 4-1 Cd CO tn tn to tn

o k * s < M u O

o H

122

U16355

Documents

Report MR 74-4 MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM · · 2013-09-10A07W37V SÄEss~~» —*• Report MR 74-4 MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM Career Potential Among ROTC